Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

COLONIAL STOCK ACT, 1900.

Ordered,
 Copy of Treasury List of Colonial Stocks and of Stocks of Territories to which the Colonial Stock Acts, 1877 to 1900, have been applied under the powers conferred by the Colonial Development Act, 1929, in respect of which the provisions of the Colonial Stock Act, 1900, are for the time being complied with."—[Mr. Duff Cooper.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Cardiff Corporation Bill,

Weston - super - Mare Urban District Council Bill,

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

Durham County Water Board Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered; Amendments made.

Ordered, "That Standing Orders 240 and 262 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Ramsgate Corporation Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered: Amendments made.

Ordered, "That Standing Orders 240 and 262 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Middlesex County Council Bill [Lords],

Ordered, "That Standing Orders 92, 231, 232, and 258 be suspended, and that the Bill be now taken into consideration provided amended prints shall have been previously deposited."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill, as amended, considered accordingly.

Motion made, "That Standing Orders 240 and 262 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time."—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

King's Consent signified; Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Alloa and District Gas Order Confirmation Bill,

Falkirk Electricity Order Confirmation Bill,

Stirlingshire and Falkirk Water Order Confirmation Bill,

Considered; read the Third time, and passed.

Clyde Valley Electrical Power Order Confirmation Bill [Lords],

Considered; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Public Works Facilities Scheme (Kingston-upon-Hull Corporation, Victoria Pier) Bill,

Considered; read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

STATISTICS.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 2.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of cases referred to the umpire under the Unemployment Insurance Acts during the first six months of 1934; the number at present outstanding; and the number awaiting decision for longer than a month?

The MINISTER OF LABOUR (Mr. Oliver Stanley): The number of cases referred to the umpire during the first six months of 1934 was 7,356. The cases at present awaiting decision number 550, of which very few are as much as a month old.

BARNSLEY, WAKEFIELD AND HEMSWORTH.

Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: 1.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons registered as unemployed at the latest available date at Barnsley, Wake-
field and Hemsworth, and the corresponding figures for the same date during the past five years?

Mr. STANLEY: As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

The Table set out below shows the numbers of persons on the registers of the Barnsley and Wakefield Employment Exchanges, and the South Kirkby* Branch Employment Office at the end of June in each of the years specified.


Date.
Barnsley.
Wakefield.
South Kirkby.


25th June, 1934
14,826
9,311
6,261


26th June, 1933
16,246
7,687
4,756


27th June, 1932
16,029
8,914
3,219


22nd June, 1931
11,418
9,233
3,864


23rd June, 1930
7,022
5,236
1,224


24th June, 1929
3,785
5,147
924


* There is no local office at Hemsworth, and persons in that area are included with those for South Kirkby.

EXCHANGE FACILITIES, CASTLETON.

Major JESSON: 3.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider the reopening of the Castleton Employment Exchange on Wednesdays and Saturdays, as the closing of the same is causing considerable hardship to some 400 unemployed who have now to travel into Rochdale twice weekly, involving a journey of six miles there and back?

Mr. STANLEY: I am making inquiries and will write to my hon. and gallant Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE.

LIVERPOOL CITY POLICE.

Major JESSON: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will furnish the House with a return of the total strength of the Liverpool city police force and with a return of the number of dismissals, rank reductions, and voluntary resignations in that force during the last two years?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): I have obtained the figures from the Chief Constable of Liverpool,
and with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission will have them printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the figures:

—
1932.
1933.


Average dilly strength of Force
2,205
2,148


Men dismissed or required to resign
4
8


Men reduced in rank
1
—


Voluntary resignations
17
14

METROPOLITAN POLICE (COMMISSIONER).

Lieut.-Colonel WINDSOR - CLIVE: 6.
asked the Home Secretary for what period Lord Trenchard was appointed Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis; and whether any limit has been laid down?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No definite period was laid down for Lord Trenchard's appointment. When he accepted the appointment he expressed a wish that he should not be looked upon as likely to remain Commissioner of Police for any great length of time and that he might be relieved of his post after about two years or as early as might be convenient to His Majesty's Government. At present no definite date has been fixed for the termination of Lord Trenchard's appointment, though His Majesty's Government are fully aware of his wishes in the matter.

INQUEST, BAYSWATER.

Mr: DORAN: 5.
asked the Home Secretary whether investigation has been made into the circumstances attending the death of Private Arthur Pass, of the Royal Army Medical Corps, at Bayswater; whether any arrests have been made in connection therewith; and also whether any effort has been made to arrest the members of the Notting Hill gang who, in conjunction with Communists and gangsters, have been terrorising members of the Territorial Army in the Paddington area over a considerable period?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The circumstances attending the death of Private Arthur Pass was investigated by the coroner at the inquest which was opened on 26th June and concluded on 17th July, when
an open verdict was returned. Immediate inquiries were made by the police as soon as the case was brought to their notice on 24th June, but no arrest has been made. The investigation is, however, being continued. I am informed that no information or complaint has reached the police that any persons in the Notting Hill district have been combining to terrorise members of the Territorial Army or anyone else in the Paddington area and that the police have no knowledge of any "Notting Hill gang."

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

JUNIOR INSTRUCTION CENTRES (INSPFICTORS).

Colonel CLIFTON BROWN: 9.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether any inspectors have vet been appointed to be responsible, as far as the Board of Education is concerned, for the inspection of junior instruction centres for unemployed boys and girls; and, if so, whether, in the case of the girls' centres where the curriculum will necessarily include domestic subjects, it is proposed to appoint a due proportion of women?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): Five of the board's existing staff of inspectors have been specially assigned full-time to this work, and an equivalent number of new appointments have been made to provide for the normal inspection duties thus relinquished. No women inspectors have yet been specially assigned for this purpose; but in all cases where girls' work is concerned the board are arranging that the inspectors charged with the duty of inspecting junior instruction centres shall I have the advice and assistance of their women colleagues who are expert in subjects designed particularly for girls.

Colonel BROWN: Are we to understand that these male inspectors, before they inspect girls doing domestic work, have to go round and hunt out a woman to accompany them? Would it not be simpler to appoint some women inspectors?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: The duplication of these inspectors would be a very expensive matter. I have already pointed
out that the men have whatever assistance they require from their women colleagues.

Colonel BROWN: Seeing that there are more girls than boys, how would that make the proposal more expensive?

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the salaries and pensions of transferred inspectors will be borne by the Ministry of Labour or by the Board of Education

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I am not certain about that; I think by the Board of Education, but I should like to have notice.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Gentleman going to appoint any women inspectors to these positions fairly soon?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I have already said that no women inspectors have yet been specially appointed for this purpose.

BARROW HILL ROAD SCHOOL, ST. JOHN'S WOOD.

Captain CUNNINGHAM - REID: 10.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is aware that cases of injury from wood splinters to scholars at the London County Council elementary school, Barrow Hill Road, St. John's Wood, still continue; and whether he will now implement his promise to remedy this state of affairs, made when one of these cases led to the death of a child in November, 1932, and thus allay the concern of parents in that neighbourhood?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: My Noble Friend is informed that some further complaints have been received by the London County Council of minor injuries to children at the Barrow Hill Road School. The council have already replaced or repaired the furniture where necessary, and they are at the present time considering the most satisfactory means of avoiding any risk from splinters on the floors of the assembly halls.

MENBOROUGH (TECHNICAL COLLEGE).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 11.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether any progress has been made in the negotiations concerning the proposed technical college for Mexborough?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: The Board are awaiting a reply from the local education authority to the communication referred to in the answer given to the hon. Member on the 5th July.

Mr. WILLIAMS: In view of the great interest taken in technical education in Mexborough, will the hon. Gentleman try to facilitate the provision of such a college?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: We are awaiting a reply from the local authority, which may come at any time now. There are difficult questions involved, and the local authority had to take time to reply, particularly having regard to the work of neighbouring institutions, and in order to avoid overlapping with neighbouring technical institutions.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Member aware that there have been well over 1,000 students in attendance at various technical schools in the last few years, and, in view of the enormous interest taken in technical education there, do not the Board of Education feel that it is their duty to have a technical college in Mexborough?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: We are waiting for the reply of the local authority.

SIZE OF CLASSES.

Mr. WHITE: 12.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education the number of classes in elementary schools in which the number of pupils exceeded 50 in 1932 and 1933, respectively?

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: The number of classes in public elementary schools in England and Wales containing more than 50 pupils was 7,986 on 31st March, 1932, and 8,296 on 31st March, 1933. Figures are also now available for the year ended 31st March, 1934, and show that the number of these classes decreased in that year by 2,111, making a total of 6,185.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

SLUM CLEARANCE.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 16.
asked the Minister of Health whether the Tickhill Urban District Council have submitted a scheme to deal with slum clearance in their area; and, if so, how far the scheme
is consistent with the recent survey in the area by county council officers?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): Yes, Sir. The action proposed is not, however, so extensive as that recommended by the county medical officer of health, and I am now awaiting the result of further consideration of the matter by the district council.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand from that reply that the right hon. Gentleman is writing to the urban district council asking for a revised scheme?

Sir H. YOUNG: Yes. There have been communications with the urban district council.

Mr. CHORLTON: 18.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will withhold his approval of the Collyhurst, Manchester, clearance order on the report of 'his inspector, till after Parliament has reassembled, to allow of sufficient time to enable all the interests of the present inhabitants and tenants to be justly considered?

Sir H. YOUNG: No, Sir. I see no ground for delaying my decision in this case.

Mr. CHORLTON: 19.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the percentage of rehousing in the Collyhurst, Manchester, clearance scheme is in the later proposal still much below that desired by the present inhabitants; and what he proposes to do to see that the percentage is increased?

Sir H. YOUNG: No, Sir. I have not received representations on this point. Moreover I am not in a position to reach any final decision with the corporation as to the accommodation to be provided on this site until I have given my decision upon the compulsory purchase order submitted by the corporation.

Mr. CHORLTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the corporation in the light of the wishes of the inhabitants?

Sir H. YOUNG: That is hardly my function. The matter is not yet ripe for consideration.

Mr. CAPORN: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that many corporations are acquiring clearance
sites at site value, are using them, and are charging the full rent, and will he see that that does not occur in this case?

SOUTH WALES.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: 17.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the failure of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1933, to provide sufficient houses to be let at reasonable rents for working people in the Llwchwr Urban Council area, and in the industrial districts of South Wales generally; and whether he will introduce a Measure to grant financial assistance to local authorities to enable houses to be built and to satsify the urgent demand for houses of this type?

Sir H. YOUNG: No local authority in South Wales has submitted proposals for action under Section 2 of the Act of 1933. As regards the last part of the question,:[would refer the hon. Member to my observations made in the course of the recent Debate on the Estimates of my Department.

Mr. GRENFELL: Has the right hon. Gentleman received a resolution from the council protesting that assistance has not been extended to them and that they are unable to proceed with the building of suitable houses because of the want of assistance

Sir H. YOUNG: I am unable to identify the resolution to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Perhaps he will put down a specific question.

AGED PERSONS.

Major NATHAN: 21.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that there is an increasing demand in many parts of England and Wales for small dwellings of a type suitable for occupation by aged persons; and whether he proposes to introduce any legislation to assist local authorities to provide such dwellings at low rentals?

Sir H. YOUNG: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I must ask the hon. Member to await the introduction of the Bill.

RE-HOUSING GRANTS.

Major NATHAN: 22.
asked the Minister of Health whether any Exchequer grants are available under the Housing Act, 1530, for the provision of re-housing
accommodation for persons of the working classes who are displaced in those cases where two back-to-back houses are converted into one through house?

Sir H. YOUNG: Yes, Sir. This matter has been receiving close consideration and it has now been decided that. in the circumstances suggested, grants may be paid towards the necessary re-housing on the basis of the number of persons contained in the smaller of the two families inhabiting the two houses before conversion.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman paying very particular attention to the matter of conversion in Bethnal Green?

REPLANNING, LONDON.

Major NATHAN: 23.
asked the Minister of Health how many resolutions have been submitted for his approval by the London County Council up to 30th June, 1934, in connection with the replanning of built areas in the administrative county of London under the powers contained in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932?

Sir H. YOUNG: Three, Sir.

STATISTICS.

Mr. WHITE: 25.
asked the Minister of Health whether he can state the number of houses which have been completed under the Housing Act, 1933, by arrangement with building societies and the number for which plans have been approved?

Sir H. YOUNG: Complete returns for the period up to 30th June, 1934, have not yet been received from the local authorities concerned. As soon as practicable I will send the hon. Member the information available from those returns.

COLLIERY REFUSE TIPS, TYLDESLEY.

Mr. TINKER: 20.
asked the Minister of Health whether he, has considered the communication from the clerk of the Tyldesley Urban District Council drawing his attention to two colliery refuse tips which are on fire, and the fact that the fumes given off have caused the people living in the vicinity to complain to the council; and what he intends to do in the matter?

Sir H. YOUNG: Complaints have been received from the council and I am arranging for a local investigation by an inspector of the Department.

OLD AGE PENSIONS (Mr. T. BURNS, LEEDS).

Mr. WHITESIDE: 24.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that in March, 1933, Mr. T. Burns, of 12, Mackenzie Street, Towngate, Leeds, applied for a pension, under the Old Age Pensions Acts, 1908–24; that the Ministry accept the gross figures given by Mr. Burns as his earnings; that they accept the figures he quotes for bad debts, wages, rent and repairs, but refuse to accept the figures of 18s. lid. per week as the cost of feeding a 17-hands carthorse; that, as a result, they assess his net earnings as £100 14s. 8d.; on what grounds they dispute the figure of 18s. 11d. per week; and whether he will inquire into the case in order that, if Mr. Burns is not eligible for a full pension of 10s. per week, he may be awarded a smaller sum?

Sir H. YOUNG: I apologise for the length of the answer. Yes, Sir. Mr. Burns appealed against a decision of the local pension committee that he was not entitled to a pension on the ground of means. His appeal was considered carefully and in detail, and it was decided in June last to uphold the committee's decision. As my hon. Friend has been informed, although Mr. Burns had been advised on the occasion of a previous claim to keep a record of the expenses of his business, he was unable on this occasion to produce evidence rebutting the figures obtained locally as to the cost of keeping a horse. The decision on that claim is in law final, but it is open to him to make a fresh claim. Should the case come before me on appeal, any fresh evidence will be considered, but pending an appeal I have no jurisdiction in the matter.

Mr. WHITESIDE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the local pension committee granted Burns a pension of 10s. per week in May, 1933, but that the local pensions officer appealed against this decision and won the case; and did the Minister dismiss the application of Burns solely on the report of that officer?

Sir H. YOUNG: No Sir, certainty not. There is a difficulty in dealing with this matter in answer to a supplementary question, because it is outside my jurisdiction and can only be raised by a further appeal.

Mr. WHITESIDE: Would the right hon. Gentleman be willing to allow me to see the entire correspondence which has passed?

RURAL WATER GRANTS.

Lord SCONE: 26.
asked the Minister of Health the total sum of the applications made for the £1,000,000 grant for improving rural water supplies?

Sir H. YOUNG: The total estimated capital cost of schemes submitted for grant is £2,040,000.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

MALTING BARLEY (BREWERS' PURCHASES).

Captain HEILGERS: 27.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the gentlemen's agreement given by the brewers to purchase as large a quantity of English barley as possible will operate again as regards the sale of this year's crop of malting barley?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I have been in communication with the Brewers' Society and am informed that they have already strongly recommended their members to continue to adhere to the undertaking given to me last year in regard to the purchase of home-grown barley.

HOPS MARKETING SCHEME.

Mr. T. SMITH: 31.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been drawn to the sale of a farm in Kent where special attention is directed to the fact that the occupier has the right under the Hops Marketing Scheme to grow hops on 25 acres; whether any warning has been issued pointing out that the present scheme is only temporary; and whether he has any means of keeping a record of such sales of land where monopoly powers are granted under the various marketing schemes?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): I have seen a Press announcement in which it is stated that a
certain farm, to be offered for sale to-day, is registered under the Hops Marketing Scheme to grow 25 acres of hops. I would point out that the Hops Marketing Scheme places no limitation on the area which may be planted to hops. As the hon. Member has pointed out, the quota provisions relating to hops tendered for sale by registered producers, which were recently added to the scheme by an amendment, are operative for a 'limited period only, that is until 31st July, 1939. The Hops Marketing Board are taking steps to bring the amendments to the notice of every registered producer. As regards the last part of the question, the answer is in the negative.

POTATO VIRUS RESEARCH, SCOTLAND.

Mr. HENDERSON STEWART: 49.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that the grant to the potato virus research scheme at Corstorphine has been reduced, and that the effect of the reduction will be to discontinue the research now being carried on at that station; whether the equivalent research station in England is being similarly curtailed; and if any alternative work on this scheme is being undertaken in the future in Scotland?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): I regret that it has not been possible to continue assistance from public funds to this scheme of research on the same scale as it was given from the Empire Marketing Fund, but the work will be continued with certain modifications in the current year. For information regarding the investigation which is being carried on in England, I would refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries.

BEER (GRAVITY).

Captain HEILGERS: 28.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the understanding reached with the brewers and anounced in the Budget Speech of 1933, whereby the brewers undertook to improve the gravities of their beers by at least two degrees, is still in operation and will continue to be observed?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir. The undertaking as to gravities given to me by the Brewers' Society in connection with the reduction of the Beer Duty in
last year's Budget was that the society would "use its influence to induce all brewers to raise the gravity of their beers by at least two degrees." I am informed that the society has frequently impressed on its members that in its view this additional gravity should continue to be given.

NATIONAL STUD.

Captain HEILGERS: 29.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has now come to any decision as to the removal of the national stud from the Irish Free State to this country?

Mr. ELLIOT: As I indicated in a reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) on 15th March last, I do not consider the removal of the national stud to this country to be practicable.

Captain HEILGERS: Inasmuch as this is a national institution, is there any justification for its continued existence in the Irish Free State, especially at a cost to the English taxpayer?

Mr. ELLIOT: A very large capital sum would be involved in its transfer to this country.

Mr. RONALD ROSS: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it can be transferred to the United Kingdom without leaving Ireland?

CARLTON HOUSE TERRACE AND GARDENS.

Mr. BOSSOM: 30.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is in a position to make a statement as to the action to be taken on the report of the Crown Lands Advisory Committee on Carlton House Terrace and Carlton Gardens?

Mr. ELLIOT: The Commissioners of Crown Lands propose to adopt the report as a guide to their policy for the present, and they will therefore restrict tenancies to the purposes mentioned in the report with the intention of deferring consideration of a rebuilding policy until a reasonable period of years has elapsed. They must hold themselves free to review the matter from time to time, in consultation with the Advisory Committee, in the light of the financial results, but in view of the unique position of the
Terrace, I hope there will be little or no difficulty about lettings and no occasion therefore for revision of policy until the question of rebuilding comes up for review at the time suggested in the report. The committee suggested two alternative ways of dealing with the upper storey of the Pinchin Johnson building, namely, removing the storey, if this were practicable, or, if this could not be done, leaving the building in isolation at that height instead of bringing the height of any new buildings into line with it hereafter. I have come to the conclusion that the first alternative is not practicable, and policy will accordingly be governed by the second. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking Lord Gorell and his committee for their very valuable assistance in this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

CURRENCY FACILITIES, GERMANY (BRITISH HERRING).

Mr. LOFTUS: 35.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that German purchases of British herring have now ceased owing to exchange restrictions; and, having regard to the disastrous effects of this measure on the present fishing season, will he endeavour to arrange for the German Government to allow temporary currency facilities for these purchases pending the completion of the final exchange agreement?

Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I would refer to the reply which was given my hon. Friend on 24th July on this subject. My right hon. Friend is aware that the present exchange situation has had a very serious effect on the sale of United Kingdom herring to Germany. I can assure my hon. Friend that the importance of the herring industry is not being overlooked in the negotiations now proceeding with the German authorities.

Mr. LOFTUS: Would my hon. and gallant Friend consider instructing the negotiators now in Berlin to try to get temporary accommodation in respect of the small amount of foreign exchange required?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: My hon. Friend will appreciate that there are
other industries which are seriously affected by the German exchange situation, and it is better to press for a very early settlement of a general exchange agreement which will benefit those industries, including the herring industry.

RUBBER FOOTWEAR (IMPORTS).

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS (for Mr. GUY): 41.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that Tan Kah Kee and Company, Limited, have gone into liquidation through selling rubber footwear at unremunerative prices in the United Kingdom; and whether he will use his influence in the interests of trade, both in. Malaya and the United Kingdom, to prevent other Malayan manufacturers from adopting a similar policy of dumping in the United Kingdom market?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I am aware that Messrs. Tan Kah Kee and Company, Limited, have gone into liquidation, but I do not know whether this was due to the reasons stated by my hon. Friend. As regards the second part of the question, I am not in a position to add anything to the reply which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade gave to the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) on Monday last.

TRANSPORT (RAILWAY SEASON TICKETS, LIVERPOOL).

Major JESSON: 36.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the travelling rates charged to season ticket holders by the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company in the Liverpool district are substantially higher than in any other district; and whether, bearing in mind that there is not now the severe omnibus competition to contend with, he will represent to the railway company that they should review their charges and bring them down to a more equitable basis?

Captain AUSTIN HUDSON (Lord of the Treasury): The Minister is not aware that the rates charged to season ticket holders by the London, Midland and Scottish Railway in the Liverpool district are substantially higher than in any other district. The standard rates for season tickets on the railways a the amalga-
mated companies were settled by the Railway Rates Tribunal under the provisions of the Railways Act, 1921, and he is informed by the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company that the rates charged by them for season tickets in the Liverpool district are either the standard rates or rates below the standard. My hon. Friend has no jurisdiction in this matter.

Major JESSON: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that in Scotland—in Glasgow—it is possible to travel twice as far for 50 per cent. less than the rate that has to be paid in Liverpool?

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (KING'S BENCH DIVISION).

Mr. CAPORN: 38.
asked the Attorney-General whether he can give any estimate of the net cost, after allowing for Income Tax and fees paid by litigants, of providing three additional judges for the King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice?

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): I can only give a conjectural estimate. The cost of providing three additlional judges of the King's Bench Division, after allowing for court fees, would be roughly £18,200, in addition to an indefinite sum which I cannot at present estimate representing the cost of making provision, in addition to existing premises which are fully occupied, for three judges' courts, three judges' rooms, and other necessary accommodation for subordinate staff, and the cost of postage, stationery, and the liability for pensions. The figure I have given takes into account the gross sums paid for salaries on the assumption that the temporary reduction of salaries is not in force; the proper deduction for Income Tax would depend on a variety of circumstances, and I can give no estimate of this.

Mr. CAPORN: Is it not a fact that, except for a very few weeks of the legal year, over half the courts in the King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice are empty?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: That is quite true, but during the other part of the year they are full.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

MOTOR DRIVING LICENCES (APPLICATIONS.).

Mr. JAMES DUNCAN: 39.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he will arrange with the London County 'Council that persons who apply through a post office for a driver's licence or a renewal thereof should also be given on demand a stamped addressed envelope in which to send the application form, which is now provided, the old licence, and the fee to the council's proper address?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Ernest Bennett): I am afraid that the arrangement would involve complications, as the regulations require that the completed form should be forwarded to the taxation department of the council in whose area the applicant resides; and many persons obtaining forms at post offices in London reside outside.

WAGES.

Mr. H. STEWART: 40.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is reconsidering the scale of wages paid to lower grade postal workers; what possibilities exist for increasing the pay of postmen and when he expects to be in a position to announce the results of his further negotiations on the matter with the Postal Workers' Union?

Sir E. BENNETT: My right hon Friend has agreed that discussions shall take place with representatives of the staff, and arrangements for these discussions are now being made.

Mr. STEWART: Do we understand that these discussions will include postmen and lower-paid postal workers?

Sir E. BENNETT: I am afraid I cannot add anything to the answer that I have given.

AVIATION (AIRCRAFT "SCYLLA" AND "SYRINX").

Captain GUEST: 43.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he will obtain reports regarding the flying characteristics of the two aircraft "Scylla" and "Syrinx," particularly in adverse weather conditions, so that he may decide whether any changes are necessary in the conditions of their certificates of airworthiness

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): I am advised that there is no ground for holding that any changes are necessary in the conditions of the certificates of airworthiness for this type of aircraft. The two machines in question fully satisfy all airworthiness requirements.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

CRANWELL (CADETS).

Mr. EVERARD: 44.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether it is proposed to increase the number of cadets at Cranwell; and, if so, by how many?

Sir P. SASSOON: The number of permanent commissions granted in the Royal Air Force each year is limited by the necessity for providing careers satisfactory as regards length of service and prospects of promotion. The recent decision of His Majesty's Government will allow of some increase in the number, but I am not yet in a position to say what the increase will be or how the additional vacancies will, be allocated between the several sources of supply, namely, candidates from the universities, from the public schools via Cranwell, and from within the service.

NEW SQUADRONS.

Mr. EVERARD: 47 and 48.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air (1) whether any and, if so, how- many of the new squadrons of the Royal Air Force will be recruited on a territorial basis;
(2) how many of the new squadrons will be flying-boat squadrons?

Sir P. SASSOON: The programme for the expansion of the Royal Air Force is still in course of elaboration. I may say, however, that one or perhaps two flying-boat squadrons will be formed, and that the possibility of increasing the existing number of squadrons recruited on a territorial basis will receive careful consideration.

TOURIST TRAFFIC.

Captain CUNNINGHAM - REID: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider setting up a Government Department for the encouragement of the tourist traffic to Britain on the lines of
those established in France and other Continental countries?

The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): No, Sir. The Travel and Industrial Development Association of Great Britain and Ireland was formed in 1929 to perform the functions referred to. Each year since its inception the association has received a grant from His Majesty's Government to assist it in its work, which it performs in cooperation where necessary with the Government Departments concerned and with the relevant bodies in Scotland and Ireland.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (PROCEDURE).

Mr ATTLEE: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether, arising out of the report of the Select Committee on Procedure, he can state what action, if any, the Government propose to take?

Mr. BALDWIN: The Select Committee appointed to consider the Procedure of this House, which sat in Sessions 1930–31 and 1931–32, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend, the Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown), took a great deal of evidence, and the Government are indebted to the Committee for the time and care which they devoted to their inquiry. The Committee consisted of Members of all parties, and, after the consideration of weighty evidence, came to the unanimous opinion that
 the Procedure of Parliament is sufficiently flexible to meet all the demands made upon it.
The Government have given most careful consideration to the Committee's recommendations, and I propose to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the decisions to which the Government have come.
The chief recommendations of the Committee refer to the Estimates Committee and the work of Standing Committees. The Government propose to accept the recommendation that greater powers should be conferred upon the Chairmen of Standing Committees by giving them the power to select Amendments, and will propose, as a necessary corollary to the acceptance of this recommendation, the appointment of a panel of Members to act both as Temporary Chairmen of Committees of the Whole House and Chairmen of Standing Committees. Mr.
Speaker has consented to appoint this panel. The Government consider that the grant of greater powers to the Chairmen of Standing Committees and the change in method of their appointment are important improvements in procedure which will make for the more efficient working of the Standing Committee system.

Mr. ATTLEE: Will the House have an opportunity of debating the report?

Mr. BALDWIN: Yes, Sir. We purpose proceeding with this business after the Recess. Communications will take place through the usual channels, and sufficient opportunity for debating these matters will be afforded.

Following are the decisions:

Recommendations.

Estimates Committee.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced on 2nd May, 1933, in reply to a question asked by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford (Sir V. Henderson) the action proposed by the Government on this recommendation, so far as it relates to the work of the Estimates Committee.

The Government are in sympathy with the suggestion that opportunities should be provided, if desired, for discussion by the House of the Reports of the Public Accounts and Estimates Committees. The questions raised in these reports are, however, frequently of a technical and intricate character, and it does not seem likely that they will invariably include matters which call for a Debate. The Government do not, therefore, think that it should be necessary to contemplate the regular provision every year of a day for discussion of the reports, but they consider that it should be practicable to arrange for discussion whenever it is desired on one of the allotted Supply Days.

The subjects debated on Supply Days are, by custom, chosen by the Opposition parties, and, accordingly, their agreement is being sought to an amendment of the Standing Orders to make provision for the consideration, if desired, of the Reports of the Estimates and Public Accounts Committees on an allotted Supply Day.

Chairmen of Standing Committees.

The Government agree that the power to select Amendments should be con-
ferred on the Chairmen of Standing Committees, but they consider that, in view of the responsibility which this power entails, the method of appointing the Chairmen should be altered. It is proposed that Mr. Speaker should nominate at the beginning of every Session a panel of not more than 10 Members to act both as Temporary Chairmen of Committees of the Whole House and as Chairmen of Standing Committees.

Recommendations on Minor matters.

Financial Resolutions.

The Government are not in favour of altering the present procedure with regard to Bills which have to be founded on financial resolutions.

Questions.

Mr. Speaker has been consulted on this recommendation, and is of the opinion that a new class of question for written reply to be distinguished by a dagger when a Member desires rapid information, might prove confusing to the House. The Government do not, therefore, propose to accept the recommendation. It is the practice of Ministers to reply as expeditiously as possible to questions for which a written answer is required, but it will be appreciated that where detailed information is sought a slight delay is sometimes unavoidable.

Guillotine.

The Government, in arranging the terms of the Time-Table Motion for the Unemployment Bill, 1934, took into consultation the Opposition parties and Members specially interested in the Bill. It is the intention of the Government to follow that course in the future when a Time-Table Motion is applied, and to adopt, as an experiment, the suggestion that the time available for the discussion of the different Clauses and stages of a Bill should be allocated by a small Committee representative of the Opposition parties and Members specially interested in the Bill.

Closure.

The Government do not propose to accept this recommendation.

Standing Orders.

Mr. Speaker nominated a small Committee to revise the Standing Orders, and the amendments proposed by the Committee were passed by the House on the 14th November, 1933.

Departmental Rules and Orders.

The Government consider that the reading by the Clerk of the House, after Private Business, of the titles of Rules and Orders laid on the Table would not serve any useful purpose.

Sitting of Standing Committees during the Sitting of the House.

The Government feel that the question whether or not a Standing Committee should sit while the House is sitting is one best left for the Standing Committee itself to decide.

Private Members' Rights.

During the present Parliament, private Members' time on the Motion days has, in the opinion of the Government, been used to good advantage. The Government are not aware of any general demand for an alteration in the present arrangements, which have only been in operation since 1927. The Government, therefore, do not propose to accept the recommendation of the Committee.

The Government feel that an invidious duty would be placed on the Committee of Selection if they were given power to review the progress made, or likely to be made, by Private Members' Bills with a view to determining precedence on the Standing Committees, and accordingly do not propose to accept the recommendation.

The Government do not consider that the proposal to allow a full half-hour's discussion whenever a Member has the opportunity of raising a question on the Adjournment previous to half-past eleven o'clock is practicable.

Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act.

The Government cannot accept the recommendation to set aside a limited number of Fridays for the discussion of Church Assembly Measures. As the Committee point out, such Measures vary in importance, and, in the opinion of the Government, sympathetic consideration would always be given to any substantial demand for a discussion at a reasonable hour of a Measure raising issues of great public interest.

The amendments to the Standing Orders to give effect to the proposed changes will be placed on the Order Paper.

ACCIDENT, SHEFFIELD.

Mr. T. SMITH (for Mr. THORNE): 7.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has received a report from his Sheffield inspector in connection with the accident to two men who were buried in a trench while excavating near a canal at Neepsend, Sheffield; and whether the trench in question was properly timbered?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have received a preliminary report on this accident, which occurred last Sunday. The circumstances will be further investigated, and I will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

UNITED STATES (EXTRADITION PROCEEDINGS).

Mr. REA (for Mr. MALLALIEU): 8.
asked the Home Secretary whether an order has yet been made for the extradition of Jacob Factor from the United States of America and how much has been spent up to the present time upon the legal proceedings involved; and what further expense is likely to be incurred?

Sir J. GILMOUR: After prolonged legal proceedings before the courts in the United States a decision was given by the Supreme Court in favour of the application by His Majesty's Government for Factor's extradition, but no order for his surrender has been made by the United States Government. The cost of these proceedings in Factor's case, so far as they can be isolated from those connected with the extradition of his associates, Klein and Geen, has amounted to approximately £11,800. It is not proposed that any further expenditure should be incurred.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that due vigilance is exercised by the officers of his Department to stop these men coming over to exploit innocent persons?

POOR LAW RELIEF.

Mr. JOHN WILMOT: 13.
asked the Minister of Health the number of persons in receipt of public assistance at the last date for which figures are available; and also the number for the corresponding date in the year 1931?

Sir H. YOUNG: The total number of persons, men, women and children, in receipt of poor relief in England and Wales on Saturday, 30th June, 1934, excluding rate-aided persons in mental hospitals, persons in receipt of domiciliary medical relief only and casuals, was 1,325,307. The corresponding number on Saturday, 27th June, 1931, was 966,930.

Mr. PALING: In view of the fact that we are told that nearly a million workers have been found work in the last two years, to what cause does the Minister attribute this enormous increase?

Sir H. YOUNG: The hon. Member will appreciate that in the class referred to here we are dealing with quite a different class.

Mr. WILMOT: Has the right bon. Gentleman any evidence that the increase of nearly 400,000 in the number of persons in receipt of poor relief is to be accounted for by the reduction in the number of persons in receipt of unemployment benefit by reason of the changed regulations?

Sir H. YOUNG: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENTS COMMISSION.

Mr. BUCHAN: 50.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether any, decision has yet been reached as to the future of the Educational Endowments Commission for Scotland?

Sir G. COLLINS: Yes, Sir. As about one-third of the work of the Commissioners is still uncompleted, the Government have decided to extend the duration of the Commission for two years after 31st December, 1934. I am to-day introducing a Bill for this purpose. It has also been decided that the Amending Bill should provide that in framing schemes the Commissioners shall have regard to the need for continuing to make provision for competitive bursaries at universities, central institutions or other educational institutions of a similar character, and further that the Secretary of State should be empowered to disapprove or amend schemes submitted by the Commissioners.

POLICE GAZETTE.

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: 51.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether arrangements for the publication of a Scottish police gazette and for its use by all Scottish police forces have now been completed?

Sir G. COLLINS: Yes, Sir. The gazette will come into operation on 1st August, and under a police regulation which I have recently made, chief constables are required to use the gazette for the purpose of the rapid circulation to all police forces in Scotland of information regarding persons wanted by the police or property stolen in their police district, and to make arrangements for the supply of copies of each issue to police stations in every district.

SMALLHOLDERS, ARRAN.

Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: 52.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can state the number of smallholders in the Island of Arran: and how many are feuars who have built their own steadings and, notwithstanding their having paid the agreed rent, have had their feus taken from them at the instance of the present landlord since the passing of the Land Act?

Sir G. COLLINS: There are 333 subjects in Arran of 50 acres or less, but I am unable to say how many of the holders of these subjects are feuars or small landholders. I have no information on the matter raised in the last part of the question.

MEAL MILLS, ARRAN.

Mr. D. GRAHAM: 53.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that there are no meal mills operating in the island of Arran at the present time, thus causing considerable inconvenience to farmers and smallholders; and whether he can state the number that have been discontinued within recent years and the reasons given for their discontinuance?

Sir G. COLLINS: I have no information regarding the discontinuance of meal mills in Arran and no representations on the subject have reached me.

RURAL WATER GRANTS.

Lord SCONE: 54.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can
now state the allocation of the grant of £137,500 for improving rural water supplies?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): I regret that I am not yet in a position to make any statement.

SHEEP-STOCK VALUATIONS.

Lord SCONE: 35.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is now in a position to make a statement regarding the report of the Committee on Sheep-Stock Valuations?

Sir G. COLLINS: I understand that the Committee have almost completed their report and that I may expect to receive it early next month.

BRITISH ARMY (OFFICERS' PROMOTION).

Captain CUNNINGHAM - REID: 58.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what proportion of the officers at present constituting the selection board for the promotion of majors of the Royal Artillery to the rank of lieutenant-colonel have served with mechanised artillery units?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Douglas Hacking): There is one member of the selection board who served in the Royal Artillery. This officer did not serve in a mechanised unit since such units did not exist when he was a regimental officer.

Colonel BROWN (for Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN): 59.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office what is the position as regards promotion in the cavalry arm; and whether any special steps will be taken similar to those proposed for the infantry of the line?

Mr. HACKING: The situation as regards promotion in the cavalry is on the whole favourable. No special steps are in contemplation other than the formation of a special list of selected Majors as in the case of the Infantry.

INDIA (ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, CALCUTTA).

Mr. McENTEE: 60.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he will at the earliest opportunity institute an inquiry
as to the alleged serious irregularities in the adminstration of justice in Calcutta Police Court by the honourable S. K. Sinha, chief presidency magistrate, particularly in regard to the large percentage of appeals to the High Court where his decisions have been reversed?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): I have nothing to add to the answers given to the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) and the hon. Member for East Dorset (Mr. Hall-Caine) on 24th July.

Mr. McENTEE: What is the actual percentage of cases heard by the chief magistrate which have been reversed on appeal?

Mr. BUTLER: I have not that information. Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a Question.

Mr. McENTEE: Have 75 per cent. of these cases in fact been reversed?

Mr. BUTLER: I have informed the hon. Member that I have no information on the subject.

Major JESSON: Is not this gentleman now in London and could he not be taken to the India Office and taught his duties?

DISARMAMENT.

Mr. MANDER: 61.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government have yet come to a decision as to whether they will support the draft articles on the manufacture of, and trade in, arms adopted by a sub-committee of the Disarmament Conference on 27th June?

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Eden): This matter is still under consideration.

Mr. MANDER: Is there likely to be a decision before the meeting of the Assembly?

Mr. EDEN: I do not think that question arises.

EASTERN MUTUAL ASSISTANCE PACT.

Mr. MANDER: 62.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is intended that the negotiations in connec-
tion with the Eastern Mutual Asistance Pact and the Disarmament Conference shall proceed concurrently, with a view to agreements being reached on these two subjects eomtemporaneously?

Mr. EDEN: I think the position was made quite clear in the statement which my right hon. Friend, the Foreign Secretary, made to the House on 13th July. He then explained that, in the view of His Majesty's Government, the conclusion of the proposed Eastern Pact and Germany's participation in the proposed system of reciprocal guarantees would afford the best ground for the resumption of negotiations for the conclusion of a Disarmament Convention such as would provide for a reasonable application of the principle of German equality of rights within a regime of security for all nations.

Mr. MANDER: Do we understand that M. Barthou's statement that the two things have nothing to do with each other is not quite in accordance with the facts?

Mr. EDEN: I cannot answer for M. Barthou.

DANZIG (SUSPENSION OF NEWSPAPER).

Mr. D. GRENFELL: 63.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the suspension for six months of the "Danziger Volksstimme," the organ of the social-democratic party of the free city of Danzig, by the police president; whether he is aware that at the meeting of the Council of the League of Nations on 18th January, 1934, when a similar problem was under discussion, the rapporteur stated that attempts to penalise a newspaper because of the opinions it expressed would, in his judgment, be a breach of the constitution of Danzig; whether he will state the grounds of the recent suspension of the "Danziger Volksstimme"; and whether, if there is even a prima facie ground for believing that this newspaper had expressed its opinions within the limits of the law, he will give notice that His Majesty's Government will bring the matter before the Council of the League of Nations at their first meeting?

Mr. EDEN: I have no information regarding the suspension of this newspaper.
The League of Nations High Commissioner is, however, the Council's representative in Danzig, and if complaint is made that a breach of the constitution has occurred necessitating action by the Council, it is for the High Commissioner to deal with the matter in the first instance. I have no doubt that if the High Commissioner thinks it desirable to bring the matter before the Council of the League, he will do so.

CHINA (BRITISH FORCES).

Mr. MANDER: 64.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether be will state the position with regard to the practice of British troops in summer camp at Shanhaikwan proceeding outside the Great Wall for training, as they have done for 33 years under the Boxer protocol, and the objection raised by the Kwantung Japanese Army?

Mr. EDEN: It has, I am informed, been the practice of the local British forces occasionally to make use of ground outside the Wall for training purposes. The question of their doing so has recently been raised by the local Japanese military authorities, and the matter is at present under consideration.

Mr. MANDER: Will the Government undertake on this occasion to do something to resist the continuous Japanese encroachment?

Mr. EDEN: I see no reason why the matter should not be satisfactorily settled.

AUSTRIA (SITUATION).

Mr. ATTLEE: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement on the situation in Vienna?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): The tragic events which occurred yesterday in Vienna have been extensively reported in to-day's Press. I have also received the official version of the events of yesterday, communicated verbally to the Diplomatic Corps in Vienna last night. A summary is as follows:
It appears that about 11 o'clock yesterday morning a hundred men wearing Austrian Army uniform seized the
Federal Chancery and made prisoners of the three Ministers of the Austrian Government who were present, namely, the Chancellor, Major Fey and Herr Karwinsky. The Chancellor was shot twice at close quarters. Simultaneously the Radio Headquarters were seized and a broadcast given out to the effect that Dr. Dollfuss had resigned and that Herr Rintelen had taken his place as Chancellor. There was no truth in these statements. Regular troops,. who were quickly 'Drought on the scene, recaptured the radio building and surrounded the Federal Chancery.
Throughout the afternoon negotiations proceeded between the insurgents and the regular forces, Major Fey acting as intermediary. The insurgents requested a safe conduct to the German border and this was promised to them, provided the three Cabinet Ministers were released unharmed. The German Minister at Vienna took part in these negotiations. The insurgents finally evacuated the Federal Chancery about 7 p.m., but about an hour previously the Chancellor had died of his wounds.
I understand that the insurgents are now in custody, the safe conduct promised to them being treated as having lapsed by reason of the death of the Chancellor, and that the identity of those who actually fired on the Chancellor is known.
In spite of the temporary success of the insurgents in seizing the Federal Chancery and the radio station, they received no general support from the population either in Vienna or the provinces, where, according to our latest reports, everything is now under control.
I called on the Austrian Minister this morning to express on my own behalf, and on behalf of His Majesty's Government, our horror at this cowardly outrage and our sympathy with Dr. Dollfuss' relations. Baron Franckenstein informed me that he had heard officially from his Government that Dr. Dollfuss lived for a considerable time after he was shot and was allowed to bleed to death by his assassins, who refused him both medical and spiritual aid.
I may add that the attitude of this country as to the independence and integrity of Austria, in accordance with
the relevant treaties, as stated in the declaration which I made on behalf of His Majesty's Government in February last, remains unchanged by these tragic events.

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Is my right hon. Friend able to say if there is any information from the Italian Government which he can give to the House? There is a report in the papers of the movement of troops towards the Tyrolean frontier.

Sir J. SIMON: No, Sir. I think that I am right in saying that up to the present we have had no communication from the Italian Government. As my right hon. Friend will be aware, these matters happen very hurriedly, and I think that I am right in saying that Signor Mussolini is not in Rome.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask the Lord President of the Council whether he can state the date of re-assembly after the Summer Recess, and announce the business of the House during the first week?

Mr. BALDWIN: Yes, Sir. The House will re-assemble after the Summer Recess on Tuesday, 30th October, and on that day the Report stage of the Incitement to Disaffection Bill, and the Second Reading of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill will be taken.
Wednesday, 31st October: Conclusion of Report stage, and Third Beading of the Incitement to Disaffection Bill.
Thursday, 1st November: Second Reading of the Electricity (Supply) Bill [Lords], and Committee and remaining stages of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.
Friday, 2nd November: Second Reading of the Sea Fisheries (Regulation) Bill and of the Dindings Agreements (Approval) Bill (to come from another place), and the Committee stage of the Diseases of Fish (Money) Resolution.
On any day, if there is time, other Orders may be taken.

Ordered,
 That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this clay's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Baldwin.]

BILLS PRESENTED.

EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENTS (SCOTLAND) BILL,

to extend by a further period of two years the period during which the powers of the Commissioners appointed under the Educational Endowments (Scotland) Act, 1923, as amended by the Educational Endowments (Scotland) Act, 1931, may be exercised, and to empower the Scottish Education Department to disapprove schemes submitted to them under the said Acts, and to frame amended schemes, and for purposes connected therewith," presented by Sir Godfrey Collins; supported by the Lord Advocate, the Solicitor-General for Scotland, and Mr. Skelton: to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 186.]

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL,

" to continue certain expiring laws," presented by Mr. Duff Cooper; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 187.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,

Isle of Man (Customs) Bill,

Colonial Stock Bill,

Public Works Loans Bill,

Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (Clacton-on-Sea and Saint Mawes) Bill,

Public Works Facilities Scheme (Penicuik Water) Confirmation Bill, without 'Amendment.

Amendments to—

Whaling Industry (Regulation) Bill [Lords], without amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to approve an agreement made on behalf of His Majesty with the Sultan of Perak." [Dindings Agreement (Approval) Bill [Lords.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[20TH ALLOTTED DAY.

Orders of the Day — REPORT [25th July.]

Resolutions reported,

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1934.

CLASS VI.

1. "That a sum, not exceeding £458,136, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1935, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, including grants for land improvement, agricultural education, research and marketing, loans to Co-operative Societies, a grant under the Agricultural Credits (Scotland) Act, 1929, and certain grants in aid."

CLASS IV.

2. "That a sum, not exceeding £4,313,185 (including a Supplementary sum of £206,250), be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of paynient during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1935, for Pnblic Education in Scotland; and for the Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh; including sundry Grants in Aid."

CLASS V.

3. "That a sum, not exceeding £13,960,924 (including a Supplementary sum of £321,000), be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1935, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Health; including Grants and other Expenses in connection with Housing, certain Grants to Local Authorities, &c., Grants in Aid in respect of Benefits and Expenses of Administration under the National Health Insurance Acts, certain Expenses in connection with the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Acts, and other Services."

4. "That a sum, not exceeding £38,904,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1935, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Labour and Subordinate Departments, including sums payable by the Exchequer to the Unemployment Fund, Grants to Associations, Local Authorities and others under the Unemployment Insurance, Labour Ex-
changes and other Acts; Expenses of the Industrial Court; Contribution towards the Expenses of the International Labour Organisation (League of Nations); Expenses of Training and Removal of Workers and their Dependants; Grants for assisting the voluntary provision of occupation for unemployed persons; and sundry services, including services arising out of the war."

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1934.

CLASS I.

5. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,309,821, he granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1935, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class I of the Civil Estimates, namely:



£


1. House of Lords Offices
22,990


2. House of Commons (including a Supplementary sum of £9,500)
228,518


3. Expenses under the Representation of the People Acts
165,000


4. Treasury and Sub-ordinate Departments
187,227


5. Privy Council Office
8,336


6. Privy Seal Office
1,698


7. Charity Commission
26,925


8. Civil Service Commission
16,044


9. Exchequer and Audit Department
93,360


10. Friendly Societies' Deficiency
5,624


11. Government Actuary
20,725


12. Government Chemist
48,506


13. Government Hospitality
4,000


14. Import Duties Advisory Committee
37,265


15. The Mint
125,000


16. National Debt Office
897


17. National Savings Committee
70,359


18. Public Record Office
24,837


19. Public Works Loan Commission
90


20. Repayments to the Local Loans Fund
39,000


21. Royal Commissions, etc.
19,840


22. Miscellaneous Expenses
533


23. Secret Service
100,000


24. Scottish Office
55,501


25. Repayments to the Civil Contingencies Fund
7,546



£1,309,821 "

CLASS II.

6. "That a sum, not exceeding £5,033,526, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1935, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class II of the Civil Estimates, namely:



£


1. Foreign Office
109,248


2. Diplomatic and Consular Services
696,492


3. League of Nations
78,400


4. Dominions Office
36,618


5. Dominion Services (including a Supplementary sum of £33,000)
395,455


6. Irish Free State Services
1,145,224


7. Oversea Settlement (including a Supplementary sum of £20,000)
27,725


8. Colonial Office
99,519


9. Colonial and Middle Eastern Services
397,800


10. Colonial Development Fund
400,000


11. India Services
1,200,874


12. Imperial War Graves Commission
446,171



£5,033,526 "

CLASS III.

7. "That a sum, not exceeding £8,638,605, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1935, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class III of the Civil Estimates, namely:



£


1. Home Office
314,573


2. Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum
44,432


3. Police, England and Wales (including a Supplementary sum of £227,000)
5,428,865


4. Prisons, England and Wales
477,000


5. Approved Schools, etc., England and Wales
110,300


6. Supreme Court of Judicature, etc.
90


7. County Courts
90


8. Land Registry
90


9. Public Trustee
90


10. Law Charges
68,154


11. Miscellaneous Legal Expenses
8,508


Scotland.


12. Police (including a Supplementary sum of £30,500)
874,477


13. Prisons Department for Scotland
71,839


14. Approved Schools, etc.
33,240


15. Scottish Land Court
5,095


16. Law Charges and Courts of Law
29,257


17. Register House, Edinburgh
90


Ireland.


18. Northern Ireland Services
2,942





£


19. Supreme Court of Judicature, etc., Northern Ireland
2,365


20. Land Purchase Commission, Northern Ireland
1,167,108



£8,638,605"

CLASS IV.

8. "That a sum, not exceeding £29,404,860, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1935, for. Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IV of the Civil Estimates, namely:



£


1. Board of Education (including a Supplementary sum of £1,506,000)
28,110,018


2. British Museum (including a Supplementary sum of £42,911)
137,048


3. British Museum (Natural History)
61,133


4. Imperial War Museum
7,295


5. London Museum
3,725


6. National Gallery
16,034


7. National Portrait Galery
l5,285


8. Wallace Collection
6,751


9. Scientific Investigation, etc.
107,573


10. Universities and Colleges, Great Britain
940,000


12. National Galleries, Scotland
5,916


13. National Library, Scotland
1,109


14. National Maritime Museum
2,973



£29,404,860"

CLASS V.

9. "That a sum, not exceeding £39,598,819, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1935, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class V of the Civil Estimates, namely:—



£


2. Board of Control
81,747


3. Registrar General's Office
65,322


4. National Insurance Audit Department
109,045


5. Friendly Societies Registry
30,856


6. Old Age Pensions
26,822,000


7. Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions
7,750,000


9. Grants in respect of Employment Schemes
2,800,000




Scotland.


10. Department of Health (including a Supplementary sum of £36,700)
1,919,120


11. General Board of Control
10,577


12. Registrar General's Office
10,152



£39,598,819"

CLASS VI.

10. "That a sum, not exceeding £9,125,812, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1935, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included. in Class VI of the Civil Estimates, namely:—



£


1. Board of Trade
145,706


2. Bankruptcy Department of the Board of Trade
90


2. Mercantile Marine Services
239,723


4. Department of Overseas Trade
250,580


5. Export Credits
250,580


6. Mines Department of the Board of Trade
137,200


7. Office of Commissioners of Crown Lands
21,300


8. Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (including a Supplementary sum of £11,930)
1,186,064


9. Beet Sugar Subsidy, Great Britain
3,220,000


10. Surveys of Great Britain
88,835


11. Forestry Commission
300,000


12. Ministry of Transport
41,957


13. Development Fund
320,000


14. Development Grants
750,000


15. Department of Scientific and Industrial Research
406,290


16. State Management Districts
90


18. Fishery Board for Scotland (including a Supplementary sum of £43,000)
144,387


19. Milk (England and Wales and Northern Ireland)
1,556,500


20. Milk (Scotland)
317,000



£9,125,812"

CLASS VII.

11. "That a sum, not exceeding £3,394,424, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1935, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VII of the Civil Estimates, namely:



£


1. Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain (Supplementary sum)
10


2. Houses of Parliament Buildings
93,720


5. Osborne
8,740


6. Office of Works and Public Buildings
396,570


7A. Haig Memorial
10,700


8. Public Buildings, Overseas
64,290


9. Royal Palaces
54,015


10. Revenue Buildings
891,275


11. Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens
131,485


12. Rates on Government Property
975,246


13. Stationery and Printing
733,018


14. Peterhead Harbour
15,000


15. Works and Buildings in Ireland
20,355



£3,394,424"

CLASS VIII.

12. "That a sum, not exceeding £28,646,855, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the_ year ending on the 31st day of March, 1935, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VIII, of the Civil Estimates, namely:



£


1. Merchant Seamen's War Pensions
201,721


2. Ministry of Pensions
26,600,000


3. Royal Irish Constabulary Pensions, etc.
873,055


4. Superannation and Retired Allowances
972,079



£28,646,855"

CLASS IX.

13. "That a sum, not exceeding £27,954,155, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1935, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IX of the Civil Estimates, namely:—



£


1. Exchequer Contributions to Local Revenues, England and Wales
24,225,000


2. Exchequer Contributions to Local Revenues, Scotland
3,729,155



£27,954,155"

REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1934.

14. "That a sum, not exceeding £47,773,065, be granted to His Majesty, to
complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1935, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in the Estimates for Revenue Departments, namely:—



£


1. Customs and Excise
3,535,100


2. Inland Revenue
4,774,965


3. Post Office
39,463,000



£47,773,065"

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1934.

15. "That a sum, not exceeding £38,474,300, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1935, for Expenditure in respect of the Navy Services, namely:—



£


3. Medical Establishments and Services
366,200


4. Fleet Air Arm
1,338,000


5. Educational Services
195,800


6. Scientific Services
461,500


7. Royal Navy Reserves
348,000


8. Section 1. Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc., Personnel
6,426,000


 Section 2. Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc., Matériel
4,844,000


 Section 3. Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc., Contract Work
9,407,500


9. Naval Armaments
4,053,200


11. Miscellaneous Effective Services
603,300


12. Admiralty Office
1,089,000


13. Non-Effective Services (Naval and Marine) Officers
3,190,000


14. Non-Effective Services (Naval and Marine), Men
5,044,000


15. Civil Superannuation, Compensation Allowances and gratuities
1,107,800



£38,474,300"

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1934.

16. "That a sum, not exceeding £17,689,100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1935, for Expenditure in respect of the Army Services (including Ordnance Factories), namely:



£


2. Territorial Army and Reserve Forces
4,724,000


3. Medical Services
910,000


4. Educational Establishments
844,000


5. Quartering and Movements
1,298,000


6. Supplies, Road Transport, and Remounts
3,895,000





£


7. Clothing
1,025,000


8. General Stores
1,181,000


9. Warlike Stores
3,004,000


12. War Office
808,000


 Ordnance Factories
100



£17,689,100"

AIR ESTIMATES, 1934.

17. "That a sum, not exceeding £3,943,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come 0 course d payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1935, for Expenditure in respect of the Air Services, namely:



£


2. Quartering, Stores (except technical), Supplies, and Transportation
1,490,000


5. Medical Services
295,000


6. Technical Training and Educational Services
373,000


7. Auxiliary and Reserve Forces
394,000


9. Meteorological and Miscellaneous Effective Services
341,000


10. Air Ministry
657,000


11. Half-Pay, Pensions, and other Non-Effective Services
393,000



£3,943,000"

First Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

3.35 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): If I do not refer to many of the subjects in the Vote which has been put from the Chair this afternoon, it will not be from any disrespect to hon. Members but will be in order to give time to hon. Members in all parts of the House to enter into the Debates on this and other Votes which are on the Order Paper. The activities of the Department during the last 12 months have been numerous and varied. It is true to say that the agricultural industry has passed through hard times during the past year and that not only have farmers had to face low and falling prices but, unfortunately, farm servants have had to share in the general depression. The industry is undoubtedly the predominant industry in Scotland. That. is, I think, seldom realised, and anyone who casts his eye over the globe will appreciate the forces at work in the various countries where they are closing
their ports to our goods, and, by an extreme form of economic nationalism, are preventing goods from going from our ports to those countries. Our agricultural industry in the future will, I believe, play a larger part in the economic life of Scotland.
I have during the last few days made a survey of the agricultural industry in Scotland. The figures, unfortunately, are not available for the year later than 1930–31, but the House will appreciate the fact that for the last year for which figures are available, the gross value of agricultural produce in Scotland was upwards of £48,500,000. The mere mention of that sum is a very clear proof of the large part that the agricultural industry plays in the life of Scotland. I would ask hon. Gentlemen to look around and consider the gross value of the agricultural produce of some of our Dominions. I will quote one figure to the House which may be of interest. The gross value of the produce from New Zealand in 1932–33 was £52,500,000. Undoubtedly the figure which I have quoted for Scotland for the year 1930–31 of £48,500,000 would be less in the year 1932–33 through the fall in prices which took place in that year, but I have stated enough to show that the value of the agricultural produce in Scotland nearly approaches the total gross value of the agricultural produce of New Zealand. We in this country and in other parts of the globe always appreciate the fact that Scotland is not only an agricultural country but an industrial country as well. Figures are, unfortunately, not available to show the total value of the industrial products of Scotland, but I think the figures I have quoted are ample proof that every step which this Government or any Government can take to safeguard that vital industry is of real importance to the future of Scotland.
During recent years there has been much more good-will between the town and the country than was the case before the War. There is a better understanding and relationship between the urban and the rural populations. I cannot define accurately all the causes of that increase of good-will, but it is undoubtedly a great asset. It is of real commercial advantage to the agricultural industry that that good-will exists. It may be that that good-will and better understanding are due to modern forms of
transport, which enable the urban population to travel to the countryside in comfort, and at low fares. It may also be due to an increased desire on the part of the urban population to seek an outlet among our hills and vales. It may also be due to the vast development which has taken place during the last year or two in market gardening and in the glasshouse industry, which has become a very large part of the agricultural industry in Scotland. Market gardening, the growing of tomatoes and other products under glass, has undoubtedly been fostered by the tariff policy of His Majesty's Government. The free exchange of those products from the country to the towns has brought the town into better touch with the country and has been of real value to the countryside.
I know that the agricultural industry will do its utmost to maintain the goodwill which exists, because in connection with the marketing schemes which the Government have been pushing forward it is essential for their continuity and success to secure the good-will of the consumers in the towns. It is because the consumers in the towns are ready to-day far more than in the past to give a helping hand to their brothers in the country that those schemes will go forward to greater success in the future. During the past year there has been real reorganisation at work on the countryside. The results of the latest research in our research stations which are being placed at the disposal of our farmers, are much appreciated. We cannot speak too highly of the very valuable work which has been done and is being done in our research stations and our agricultural colleges and the efforts made to make that scientific knowledge available for the practical use of the farmer. In some quarters that knowledge has been taken advantage of more than in other districts. The farmers to-day are very anxious not only to increase the productivity of their farms and to increase and improve their crops but at the same time to produce articles which the public want at the lowest possible cost. Research will undoubtedly help them in that matter, and in the Estimates which are being presented to the House there are sums set apart for research. In the research institutions the work is being carried on by keen and alert investigators, aided as they have been by practical men, and they are
pouring forth knowledge of which our farmers are taking advantage in many ways.
Let me pass from that point to two or three questions which hon. Members have put to me' during recent months. The hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. H. Stewart) has put questions to me 'about bracken. Experiments have been conducted with the object of securing up-to-date machines so as to eradicate bracken from our soil. The latest experiment is to secure the destruction of bracken by spraying from the air. The experiment has not yet taken place. I had hoped that it would have taken place before these Estimates were considered, but I think that next week or the following week this peculiarly interesting experiment will take place, and I hope the result will be fruitful to all concerned.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why the Department is only putting this idea, into practice this year, seeing that not only this year but last year it has been put into practice with great effect in Russia?

Sir G. COLLINS: Earlier in the financial year I secured a certain sum of money from the Treasury with a view to making scientific investigation into bracken, and as a result of that expenditure we have been able to enlist the services of certain individuals to direct their minds to that problem. I am not au fait with the position in Russia and what steps have been taken to deal with the problem there, but the hon. Member will see before many months are over a real determined effort made to deal with this problem here.

Sir IAN MACPHERSON: As one who has also put questions with regard to bracken, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman intends to say anything about drainage?

Sir G. COLLINS: I had not intended to touch on that subject, hut the Under-Secretary will be replying on the general Debate, and I am sere that he will make a note and deal later with the point raised by my right hon. and learned Friend. Let me come to the subject of oats. Oats has Always been a thorny problem in Scotland during the last few years. The price has been falling and
the demand has been decreasing. As the Committee know, a very strict duty was imposed, I think in February of this year, and it must be gratifying to hon. Members to learn that whereas the price was only about 4s. 11d. at that time, it has since risen to 6s. 2d. The most notable fact is that imports from foreign countries have practically disappeared, so that the duties have been effective in that direction. What the future of oats and oat prices will be I will not venture to say. My experience has shown that it is almost impossible to try to forecast the course of prices.
The destruction caused by deer has also engaged the attention of the department, and I am happy to say that at a meeting held in Edinburgh during the last few days between representatives of the department and the interests concerned, an agreement was very nearly reached on that subject. I will not say that it is complete, but I can assure my right hon. and hon. Friends that we are fully conscious of the damage done by deer, that the problem requires to be solved and that if the information which reached me yesterday is accurate and conveys accurately the spirit of those who sat round the table in Edinburgh, I am hopeful that some sensible and satisfactory solution of this problem will be accomplished.
Let me turn now to the milk marketing scheme which has been in operation for twelve months. Naturally, when such a large scheme is inaugurated, covering as it does every producer in the South of Scotland and meeting as it does the desires and wishes of every distributor in that area, there are bound to be points of criticism. Every industrial undertaking in its infancy must meet with criticism, and it is impossible to think out a scheme which will be satisfactory to all concerned from the start. In judging this scheme I ask the House and the public in Scotland to look with a kindly eye on the efforts of the Milk Marketing Board in their difficult attempt to reconcile the interests of the producer and the consumer. It is not the business of the Secretary of State, and I shall certainly not try, to be the judge or arbiter as between the interests of the hoard and the interests of any section of producers or consumers. The board is a popularly elected body, to its constituents it must stand or fall, it is
to them only that in the long run it is responsible.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: The producers?

Sir G. COLLINS: It is a producers scheme.

Mr. MACLEAN: Is not the Secretary of State in the position of one who should be prepared to protect the interests of consumers, who have no representatives on the board?

Sir G. COLLINS: I am coming to that point. If the board require advice or assistance I shall not shirk giving what advice and assistance I can nor shall I shrink from taking any action which it is necessary to take on the advice of the Committee of Investigation. The 1931 Act set up the proper machinery to deal with complaints by any section of producers or consumers. I know the case has been raised that these committees have taken too long to come to their decisions upon the points referred to them, but this is new ground for them to cover, there is nothing to guide them in the course of their deliberations as to what line of action should be taken in their report to the Secretary of State. I am satisfied that the board, no less than myself, have been anxious, and are very anxious, to secure that present obstacles will be overcome and the interests of producers and consumers reconciled. This, I know, is, and always will be, a difficult problem, but I am convinced that that is the spirit in which the Milk Board are directing their efforts and as I have said, if they need advice or assistance and I am asked for it I will give it.
As to the problem of costs, it must always be a difficult problem how to secure a reduction of costs. It has baffled already many business men. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and I were considering to-day what steps can be taken on this difficult subject. My remarks this afternoon will be brief not because the subject is unimportant, but because other hon. Members are anxious to take part in the Debate. In submitting these Estimates to the House I do so with confidence because I know, after two years of experience, that the schemes which have been entrusted to the Department of Agriculture are administered with care and efficiency and that the Department are anxious to further the interests of
agriculture in Scotland. They have been fortified in recent months in their endeavours by the valuable assistance readily and generously given by men in all ranges of life in Scotland, who are ready to pool their ideas for the benefit of the industry. That is the spirit which animates the Department, and that is the spirit in which I know the House this afternoon will discuss this Vote.

3.56 p.m.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: The Liberal party could have no better justification for its decision to ask for a third day to discuss Scottish Estimates than the masterly survey which the Secretary of State for Scotland has just given of the administration of his Department. These are critical and even desperate times for all interested in agriculture in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman's speech is the latest of many proofs which he has given that Scottish agricultural administration is in capable and sympathetic hands. lt is all the more to be regretted that administration, however capable, intelligent and sympathetic, cannot solve the problems of agriculture if the underlying policy of the Government is unsound. The years 1929, 1930 and 1931 were considered bad years for agriculture, yet there are very few farmers in Scotland who were not better off then than they are now, getting better prices for their sheep and lambs, fat cattle and stirks than they are now after three years of Protection. That is because Protection has depressed world prices more than it has raised home prices, and the Ottawa Agreements, in which the Dominion farmer was promised an expanding share of the British market, have given an immense and catastrophic stimulus to Dominion production and competition with the home farmer.
But these wider issues of policy are not proper subjects for debate to-day and I should be out of order if I attempted to outline an alternative policy. Moreover, the crisis in agriculture is so severe and the plight of the farmer and smallholder so critical that those whose disbelief in the soundness and efficacy of the Government's policy is strongest must be anxious not to indulge in any carping criticism on small points but to search within the framework of the Government's policy, mistaken as we believe it to be, for means of co-operating with
them as far as we can in any measures which are intended to be helpful, or, at any rate, which seem to us likely to fulfil their object. If we cannot therefore accept responsibility for them we should not obstruct them but see that the right hon. Gentleman and the Minister of Agriculture get a fair chance to try out their policy. My own attitude cannot be better described than in the words of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) in a speech about a fortnight ago when he described the Minister of Agriculture as Scottish Members might describe the right hon. Gentleman, as a clever man who was honestly doing his best for the farmers. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs went on to say:
Whenever he sends a paper round about pigs or milk or potatoes I, as a farmer, really hardly ever read it. I just ask where is the dotted line, and put my name to it, because it is fair he should have his chance. He is trying to do his best to do something, but I have no idea what it is.
And so in this Debate we must accept all the limitations and even the menacing implications of the Government's economic policy, and apply our minds to the important problems with which the right hon. Gentleman dealt in his speech, and with others which are referred to in the report of the Department of Agriculture which is in our hands.
Let me, however, in the first place, condole with the Government, and with, the Secretary of State in particular, on the loss to the public service of an administrator of brilliant and varied gifts, a loyal and accomplished friend to Scottish agriculture, and a sound and brilliant adviser to successive Secretaries of State for Scotland. I refer, of course, to Sir Robert Greig, who, we are glad to know, retires with his health unimpaired and his strength unabated, and our best wishes go with him. Our good wishes also attend his experienced and capable successor, Mr. Laird. The Department has also suffered severe losses last year through the deaths of Mr. Miller, the agricultural inspector, and Dr. King, who was so greatly respected, and whose mastery of farm economics was one of its most precious assets.
I listened with great interest to the right hon. Gentleman to-day, and I was hoping that we should hear a little more from him on one aspect of agricultural
reconstruction, and, indeed, of social reconstruction which seems to me of vital importance in Scotland at the present time, and that is land settlement. I know that the Under-Secretary of State, as well as the Secretary of State, who both frequently address the House on this subject, are keenly interested in the policy, but I wish that I could see signs that the Government were taking a longer and wider view of the many-sided significance of land settlement. In the first place, land settlement may be regarded, I think, as perhaps the most important and the most urgent aspect of agricultural reconstruction. Small holdings have now been tested in the furnace of the worst agricultural depression through which this country has ever passed, and they have come through triumphantly. The branches of production for which small holdings are best adapted are the very ones in which, when normal conditions return, agriculture is likely to be founded on an economic footing. I refer to animal husbandry, the dairying industry, poultry and eggs and all the small lines of farming in which the element of freshness is a prime element in value. Therefore, from the strictest standpoint of the economic future of agriculture, land settlement must be an essential part of any policy of agricultural reconstruction.
Then, again, there can be no doubt that the people of this country, as of all other countries, will insist on taking their dividends out of the pool of wealth which increasing production is making available for mankind, to some extent at any rate, in the form of shorter hours, and the enduring social importance of the allotment movement is, therefore, apparent with its effort to obtain good-sized gardens or small plots for miners and industrial workers, especially those with experience of country life. I welcome the advance which the Government have made on those lines. In this question a number of Members have taken a great interest. The hon. Member for Dumfermiiue (Mr. Wallace) raised some questions affecting it in the short discussion we had on these Estimates last week. The co-operation of the Government with the National Allotments' Association is work which derives immediate importance from the contributions which it makes to the mitigation of the evil of unemployment. But its significance is far more enduring than that, and the Government
should press on vigorously with the development of this policy.
The particular policy of which I am now speaking—the part-time holding—not the full-time holding for the industrial worker—is receiving now an impetus partly from the co-operation of the Government with the National Allotments' Association in this very important work which they are doing, and partly from the admirable scheme initiated by the present Secretary of State and Under-Secretary of State for providing allotments or plots of ground for the miners. I hope that the Government will extend that policy, and I want to remind the Under-Secretary of what he said last week on this subject. It was a very hurried Debate at the end of the day when we had a very scanty and skimped discussion on the agricultural Estimates —about 15 minutes altogether. I am not, therefore, in the least pinning the Under-Secretary to the words he used, but I would ask him to elaborate what he said when he comes to reply to-day. Speaking of these plots, be said:
So successful are they that the disadvantage in one's mind is that of thinking 1:hat they open too wide a door for the future."—(OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th July, 1934; col. 1505, Vol. 292.]
I beg him not to be too timid about it, but to press on with it. If the experiment is succeeding, I beg him to push forward with it, I believe it will be found to be of immense significance not only for the re-construction of agriculture, although I believe a great deal of agriculture in the future will be done on these lines—much more than in the past—but also because of its social significance. "Cultivate your gardens," said Voltaire, and I believe it is true, fundamental wisdom to give our industrial workers the opportunity of getting contact with the soil and that useful alternative employmen(t. The Under-Secretary of State went on to refer to the difficulty of obtaining land. He appealed to farmers and to landlords to give the land for that purpose. I warmly support that appeal, and I am sure that it will be supported in every quarter of the House. But I think the Government must be prepared for the possibility that that appeal may not be responded to; they should be prepared for it, and should be considering steps which it may be neces-
sary to put into operation to acquire the land compulsorily for this purpose.
There is a, slightly different function of this type of holding, or, perhaps, a slightly larger type to which I would refer. It is one which has been raised before in our Debates by the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. H. Stewart). It is the idea of creating a holding perhaps a, little larger than we have been discussing up to now which would be a part-time holding, and in which, in the stress, perhaps, of some economic crisis in the future, an industrial worker could find a temporary refuge and useful productive employment. Under any conceivable Government and any conceivable system there are bound to be times of
crisis and dislocation. Socialism is no safeguard against that. We see the terrible dislocation and privation in Russia, the only Socialist State, and, indeed, it is obvious that there must inevitably be, owing perhaps to the actions of nature—devastating floods or droughts—or, perhaps, changes of taste and fashion on the part of the consumer, in any economic system periods of crisis and dislocation, of boom and slump. It is also clear that individual industries will rise or decline according to their efficiency, on the one hand, or their backwardness, on the other, and, again, according to the fluctuations in taste and fashion. Therefore, I would say that if the worker has a smallholding of manageable size he is able to be—to use the German phrase which I have used in this House before—crisis resisting. He has something to fall back upon, and if he has a period of unemployment, be it short or be it long, he has some contact with the soil, some real chance of maintaining his home and family, to some extent if not entirely, by the produce of his own labour.
I come now to the still larger holdings in the vicinity of towns which are meant to be whole-time holdings which the Government are setting up under the new Act which was passed this Session. We were critical of, and, indeed, I must make it clear that we are still condemning, the conditions on which the men are to be settled, but that kind of settlement is right, and agriculture will be increasingly organised like that in future, The Under-Secretary of State is, of course, an old advocate of small holdings, and the Secretary of State prac-
tically confessed himself a new convert, but I can see that he has already acquired some of the characteristic enthusiasm of the new convert, and I hope that he will press forward with these aspects of land settlement.
But important as these developments are in the industrial districts, and right as the Government policy is, it is just as vital to pursue an active policy of land settlement in the Highlands and other rural counties. Even in these days of stark depression, there exists there a real land hunger and a real demand from the people who live in those areas for a chance of working a piece of land. There are thousands of unsatisfied applicants, some of them ex-service men still waiting for the land which they understood to have been promised them as the reward for their services in the War. There are 8,700 applications still outstanding. Last year alone there were more than five times as many new applicants for land as there were holdings constituted. I am not blaming the Secretary of State for not settling all those thousands of men in a year or two, but I do beg him to realise the urgency of the problem not only in the industrial districts, but also in the Highlands and other rural districts of Scotland. Depopulation is our curse. Men are leaving the countryside when they could be kept there, if they were givn a bit of land to work.
When we were last discussing this question, the Under-Secretary said that when I had the honour of holding the office which the right hon. Gentleman now holds, I had purchased no estates in the Highlands of Scotland. The Under-Secretary did not add, as I should have expected him to do with his characteristic fairness, that half the time I was in office there was a Treasury Standstill Order in operation which we had inherited from the Labour Government—a complete ban on further settlement. For half of my time it was impossible to make any move at all; but the moment it was lifted I gave instructions, which are now to be seen at the Scottish Office, that every opportunity was to be taken to acquire land for new holdings and enlargements in the Highlands of Scotland. This ought not to be an occasion, and I do not wish to convert it into an occasion, for sparring between the Secretary of State and one of his predecessors, but this was said
on that day, and as I have not had an opportunity of replying and as I had to look up that particular instruction, which I have now found, I just put it on record to-day in passing.
But I do say that the Secretary of State has now a better chance than any previous Secretary of State since the War of proceeding with this work of land settlement, because never have prices been so low or money so cheap as now. Holders can now be put in on the ground floor. In 1921 and 1922, under the pressure of public opinion, men were put in at boom prices, and yet they have managed, with the exception of a small percentage of holders, to win through. Now is the time to get men in on the ground floor. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to seize this chance, and particularly would I refer to the importance of enlargements. Hon. Members who have read the report of the Department of Agriculture for last year will see that whereas in the Western Isles there are 1,000 applications for new holdings and 800 for enlargements, in the non-crofting counties there are 3,000 applicants for new holdings and only 97 for enlargements, and in the crofting counties, apart from the Western Isles, there are 1,682 applications for new holdings but 2,170 for enlargements. That shows the immense importance of providing for enlargements of holdings in the Highlands. I would, therefore, urge the Secretary of State to adopt the active policy of taking over well-situated hill farms on the expiry of their leases, to provide for the need both of enlargements and of good new holdings, in the glens and straths of these hill farms which would not involve the breaking up of good-sized arable farms.
I have said that the rates at which money can now be borrowed and the present level of prices offer a great opportunity for land settlement. I have referred also to the infinitely more difficult problem which faced the Government 10 or 12 years ago, of settling men at a level of prices and high interest rates for borrowed money just after the War. It is remarkable how few of these men have failed. But undoubtedly they are going through very great difficulties, and none are going through greater difficulties than the sheep stock clubs, which borrowed large sums of money from the Government in those days in order to take over valuable sheep stock, at the
very peak, in many cases, of the boom. Many of these men in these clubs took over these sheep stocks at inflated valuations, with the connivance, and even at the instigation, of the Board of Agriculture, spurred on by the Government of the day, itself driven by public opinion, which said, "You must settle these men after the War as quickly as you can." But the position of the men was not like that of a man who is investing his capital in this industry or that. It was a position which they took under advice, amounting almost to pressure. "Take this farm now which is offered you, or you will not get another chance," was the position with which these men were faced.
The situation in which they are now is an impossible one. I dealt with it at some length when I was discussing last year's Estimates of the Department some months ago, and I do not want to repeat what I said then about the imperative necessity for reviewing the obligations into which these clubs have entered. I have also made more detailed representations to the Secretary of State, and it is my duty now to thank him for the response which he made and to testify to his practical sympathy with these men in granting them a moratorium. But the moratorium is due to expire at Martinmas of this year. The collection of the annual instalments of capital and interest is due to be resumed next year, and in the meantime there is no improvement, and no immediate prospect of improvement in the financial position of these clubs.
Ten years ago—more in some cases and less in other cases—the State encouraged these men to believe that, if they worked hard, in ten years the loans would be repaid and the sheep would belong to them absolutely. After 10 years of hard work and judicious management—the Department testifies to that—after the men have looked after their stocks well, they are worse off than when they started. In one case in Sutherland the sheep stock has fallen in value to less than the amount already paid to the Department of Agriculture. They paid £3,000 in cash and borrowed £23,000, and they have repaid £13,000, but the sheep are not worth £13,000 now. Yet if this moratorium is allowed to expire they will be called upon to pay another £13,000 before they will be quit of their obligations. The men will not do it. They
are losing heart. The danger is that they will give it up and throw the stocks back upon the Government's hands, and that would mean a serious loss of public money.
I therefore urge, on the ground of common financial prudence as well as of justice to these hard-working holders, that the sheep stocks should be revalued and the loans written down to a reasonable figure. In that way members of the clubs will be encouraged to persevere, and the losses incurred in pursuance of the national policy of post-War land settlement at a monstrously high level of prices will be fairly distributed between the Government, which was responsible for the policy, and the holders, to whom the benefits will ultimately accrue. Of course, the fall in sheep prices is affecting farmers and holders all over the Highlands, and I know how much sympathy the Secretary of State feels with them in their plight. There is another way in which he has shown it. I represented to him that he might reduce the fees paid by the smallholders for the rams to improve their stock, and I would thank him for the response which he made to that appeal and for the reduction which he made in the fees. But I do hope that he will very seriously consider at an early date the question of these sheep stock clubs and give the men the encouragement of knowing that when the moratorium comes to an end they will be fairly treated and that their stocks will be revalued.
There is another matter of very great importance, particularly in the Highlands at this time of year, or rather it will become of importance before the House meets again in October. That is the depredations of deer. Up to now successive Secretaries of State have attempted to deal with the situation by administrative methods and those methods have not been successful. I know that legislation has been attempted. I had some hand in the Measures for framing a Bill, and I understand that the Secretary of State has himself been giving attention to it. But we are debarred to-day by the Rules of Order from discussing the lines on which legislation can proceed or from referring to any matter that necessitates legislation. It is obvious, however, that no Act can be passed now which will affect the situa-
tion next October. I therefore ask the Secretary of State what are his views and plans for dealing with this menace to Highland farmers.
I was very much interested in what the Secretary of State said about research and education. Frankly I regret that under these heads there are reductions of expenditure. The reduction under the head of research is small, but far from a reduction being necessary, what was really required was more expenditure. The importance of research and education is apt to be obscured in times of depression. People say, "All that matters is higher prices." But farmers are beginning to learn that price is only part of the problem of making farming pay. The fact is that consumers will not pay, and in times of depression, with 2,000,000 unemployed, or 4,000,000 with their dependants, they cannot pay high prices. The real problem is the relationship between costs and prices, and if by stamping out disease or by increasing yields, whether of cattle or of pastures, costs can be reduced, other things being equal consumption will be maintained and profits will be increased.
I was glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that he was going to deal with the evil of bracken, which is spreading. It is a very serious pest in many parts of Scotland at the present time. It adds greatly to the burden of shepherding and especially in parts where the sheep are apt to be struck by fly and liable to suffer death by being slowly eaten by fly. It is a terrible thing to contemplate. It is, therefore, a, service which I hope the Secretary of State will find means of rendering to agriculture, by giving some help in getting rid of the bracken pest. The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) referred to the example of Russia.. I am sure we are all glad to know that the destructive capacity of the Russian Bolsheviks has found a useful outlet in Russian bracken. I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to emulate the Bolsheviks' achievements in that respect, if in no other.
Much as I would like to discuss some of the problems being considered by colleges and agricultural institutes I know there are many others who wish to speak, and I will refer to only one
of their problems, that which deals with the dairying industry. It seems to me extraordinary that at a. time when the importance of promoting the dairying industry is so fully recognised and Measures are being passed with that object by Parliament, more weight should not he put behind research into the problems of the dairying industry. It was stated last year, on the high authority of a well-known official of one of these institutes that only £25,000 was being spent in the whole country on cattle disease research, and of that only £5,000 was being spent upon research into diseases of dairy cattle. I welcome the Government's Bill to deal with the eradication of tuberculosis, but there are other diseases, like contagious abortion and mastitis, which inflict greater losses than tuberculosis on the dairy herds of Scotland. I know that there is a research committee considering contagious abortion now. I hope the Government will press on with that work and give that committee all the resources that it requires. I also see with regard to mastitis that the committee of the Economic Advisory Council which is concerned with cattle diseases, has recommended in paragraph 214 of their report, that certain facilities should be given for the control of that disease through the Government's veterinary and scientific services. I should like to know whether the Government propose to carry out that recommendation because this is a matter of real importance in relation to dairy farming.
I hope also that the Under-Secretary will be able to tell us something about his plans for administering the milk Measure, and particularly for the supply of milk to school children and children of pie-school age. This matter has of course a social aspect of vital importance but it is also going to be the best possible advertisement for the dairying industry in Scotland. An hon. Member on the benches below the Gangway challenged the Minister of Agriculture to say who was going to drink all the milk when it was produced, and who was going to make people drink it, and the Minister's reply was, "I will." I hope it will be possible to get this milk across to the children, and to make them accustomed to drinking it. If we can get the rising generation accustomed to drinking milk I believe we shall be able to raise the standard of milk consumption in this
country to something like what it is in the United States, and eventually to something like what it is in Sweden.
There is one other subject to which I wish to refer and that is the question of harbours. Excellent work is being done on our piers and harbours by the Department of Agriculture but more is needed. Harbours around our coasts are falling into disrepair and they are vitally important not only for the fishermen but in many places to the farmers and smallholders for whom they provide the only means of communication with markets in the south. The world famous tourist centre of John o' Groat's needs a modest extension of its harbour. Another pier on the west coast of Scotland—Loch Clash near Kinlochbervie in Sutherland which provides the means of communication to people all over a wide district with their markets in the south—grew more and more rotten until finally the late properietor—he sold the estate last Whitsuntide—destroyed the pier and the people who live there have now no pier at all which is a disaster for them. Particularly valuable work has been done by the Department in connection with the important harbour, Helmsdale, and I observe that they say in their annual report that it is completed; but unless my information is at fault, repairs are badly wanted to the middle pier, and further dredging is required there, and I would ask the Secretary of State to consider that point.
The prospects of agriculture are gloomy to-day, but there are fitful gleams of light and hope. There is much that the Government are doing which, in our opinion, ought to be left undone, and much that they are not doing which in our opinion ought to be done. But I assure the Secretary of State for Scotland that in his conscientious discharge of his onerous responsibilities to Scottish agriculture he has the good will and will also have, so far as we can honestly give it, the cooperation of even the sternest of his critics.

4.40 p.m.

Captain SHAW: I listened with great interest to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland in what he said regarding the milk scheme. He said that the milk scheme in Scotland had been initiated for the benefit of the producers, but I can assure him that in
my constituency the scheme has brought not benefits but penalties to the milk producers. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) said that the smallholders in some places had passed through a fiery furnace. At the present time many of the milk producers in the county of Angus are being passed through a fiery furnace in the matter of this milk marketing scheme. As an example I may mention that at Kingennie in Angus we have 34 smallholdings of which 19 are dairy holdings. Under the scheme these men are being asked to pay two rents. They have the ordinary rent payable to the Department, and then they have the levy which is put upon them by the milk scheme and which amounts to another rent. I have particulars here of a case of two brothers, both ex-service men. Their holdings together represent 96 acres and their rent including building annuities comes to £200 a year. They have been in the habit of selling their milk in Dundee, and now, under this scheme, they are subject to a levy of 5d. a gallon which just amounts to a second rent. The same thing applies to another case of smallholdings at Kintrose, near Cupar Angus. There the smallholders engaged in this industry are subject to a second rent or are at least liable for the payment of a second rent as a result of this scheme.
When these charges become due I hope that my right hon. Friend will treat these people in the same way as the sheep clubs have been treated and will give them a moratorium because these smallholdings are not gold mines, and it is impossible for those who work them to pay the rents and at the same time pay this levy. It is not merely the smallholders who are being penalised. The large milk producers are having a similar experience. It is difficult to procure exact costings in the case of milk production in Scotland, but there happens to be in my constituency a farmer who has for years kept very accurate accounts of his milk production. These accounts have been audited by a chartered accountant in Dundee who has a local reputation for accountancy especially in reference to agricultural subjects. This farmer produces 32,000 gallons of milk per year. During the winter months it costs over 1s. a gallon to produce this milk—that is the time when the cows are in stall. In the summer time it costs about 9d.
and the average over the whole year is 10.3d. per gallon. This farmer as a milk producer received from the board 84d. per gallon for his milk. It does not require a financier to see that that sort of thing cannot go on or else the farmer will be put out of business, and his work-people thrown out of employment and ultimately the people of Dundee will not be able to get fresh milk every morning. It seems absurd that people who supply fresh new milk every morning should only get the same price in Dundee as the man who sends up from Dumfries or some other place milk which arrives when it is 24 hours old.
To show more clearly how this scheme works, I will give some figures relating to the case of a farmer in Angus who has two dairy farms. On the one farm he has a herd of 46 cows and during May of this year he produced 3,430 gallons of milk. He sells that milk as a retailer producer. On his second farm he has 36 cows, and the milk from this farm he sells to a distributor in Dundee. On the second farm during May 2,340 gallons of milk were produced, and these were sold at the price determined by the board, namely, ls. 2d. a gallon. That shows £136 10s. for the 2,340 gallons. From that must be deducted a charge for haulage, leaving.129 Ss. 9d. The Milk Board take a levy of 5d. per gallon on the milk produced on both farms, making in all £113 1s. 5d. After paying the levy on the produce of both farms and the expenses it means that this man only gets from his second farm 2s. 6d. We have here a concrete instance of a man with 82 cows and he has to utilise the milk produced by 36 of those cows in order to meet the expenses of the board. I think that shows an intolerable position and one that cannot be allowed to continue.
We shall probably be told that the levy will be reduced. Of course, it will be reduced because seasonal producers in the South of Scotland will be producing less milk, but that will not help the producers in Angus because the reduction in the levy will synchronise, with an increase in the cost of the production of the milk and the producer will be left exactly where he was. The Secretary of State indicated that he was not anxious to interfere in this matter. He seemed
inclined to hide behind the Marketing Board and to place the responsibility upon them, but I think that he is morally responsible. His Department is morally responsible and the Government are morally responsible. I was interested to find the Minister referring to marketing schemes which the Government had been pushing forward. If the Government have been pushing forward schemes which have inflicted the penalties I have described on producers in Angus and round the East Coast of Scotland then they have a moral responsibility for putting the matter right.
The Scottish Agricultural Organisation Society is one of the offshoots, one of the subsidiaries I might say, of the Department, and on page 45 of their annual report will be found reference to the fact that this society had given assistance and support for the promotion of the Scottish milk marketing scheme and has undertaken a considerable amount of explanatory propaganda work with respect to that scheme. If the Department and the Secretary of State claim credit for having pushed forward these schemes, they cannot escape the responsibility for seeing that justice is done under these schemes to all producers. I hope we may have the assurance from the Secretary of State that apart from what the result may be of the inquiry in Edinburgh, he will see that justice is done to these people in Angus, and to the producers throughout Scotland. I do not know how he proposes to do it. I do not know whether he would favour a premium to the producer, but that is the system which I should recommend. He may favour a system of regional prices, but still I cannot imagine that he would do so, because I gather from the Estimates that he himself is penalised under a system of regional prices. It would appear that the Secretary of State for Scotland under a system of regional prices gets less than a Secretary of State in any other part of the country. I think that is an injustice both to my right hon. Friend and to Scotland. I do not expect that he will go on strike for an increase, but I can assure him that if he takes up this matter which I have brought before him, and secures justice for the producers in the East of Scotland, there is nothing he
can do which will more readily induce them to support him in getting proper recognition for himself and for his Department.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I am loth to enter into this Debate on agriculture so far as it affects Scotland, but I do so because what we call country servants in Scotland—they call them agricultural workers in England—have not sent a single individual to represent them in this House. That is one of the reasons why their conditions are in such a deplorable state at the moment, and we have to do the best that we can for them. It is perfectly true, as the Secretary of State for Scotland said in his introductory speech, that there is a better understanding to-day between the industrial centres and the rural districts of the country, and that is all to the good; but he said that the predominant interest of Scotland was agriculture, that our agricultural produce was valued at £48,500,000, whereas New Zealand produced only £32,000,000 worth. Scotland is not only a great agricultural country, but, small as it is, it is one of the greatest industrial countries in the world; yet with all that reputation behind us, there are no more lowly-paid and badly treated workers in Britain than the Scottish country servants. Their conditions are deplorable as compared with things in general. It is true that they have advanced in my time, just as everything else has improved, but the agricultural workers in Scotland have not improved in the same proportion as the workers in the industrial centres,.largely because they are unorganised.
The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State mentioned the burning of bracken. Bracken has been a plague in Scotland for many years, simply because the Highland lairds in particular drove the Highlanders out of the Highlands. The Highland glens and straths used to boast of supporting a hardy, intelligent race by the tens of thousands, but they have been driven out of their native land. You may go to parts of the glens yet and see their homes roofless. They were driven out by the Highland landlords to make room for sheep.

Duchess of ATHOLL: May I ask the hon. Member if he would be satisfied to see those tens of thousands of people living in the Highlands of Scotland
to-day, with the very low standard of living that they used to have, when they were so hard put to it for food that they used to have to bleed the cattle in the winter to give themselves nourishment, and the cattle had to stagger out at the end of the winter to try to recover their strength on the grass?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I thank the Noble Lady for that interjection, because it permits me to say how these Scotsmen view the duchesses, particularly the Duchess of Sutherland, who was responsible for the Highland clearance. No, we to-day have no desire to see our folk driven back to those conditions. That would be out of proportion. It would be an utter impossibility to drive them back. We do not go back; we go forward. But with all our modern inventions, I must say this, that, although those Highland glens may not have maintained them on a very high standard of life, they maintained a race that defeated the power of Rome. Rome's Imperial legions went back before the same men and women that I am speaking about, people who had no power, no transport, nothing to maintain them but what they got off Scottish soil, and they were able to maintain their independence against all corners, second to nothing in the world. They may not have had a very high standard of life compared with the standard of life to-day, but that is what they did, and a race that stood that, and that has produced some of the brightest men and women of to-day—who have come even from the black houses away in the Outer Hebrides, who are holding some of the highest positions, not only in this little tight island of ours, but throughout the great British Empire—has come from the very lowest and poorest homes in the glens and dales of Scotland.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Does the hon. Member not admit that these people have improved their position very greatly by going out into the far parts of the Empire, away from the Highlands?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I agree that it is improved, but at a terrible price, because tens of thousands of them died as a result of being driven away to Canada, at a time when it took 90 days for a sailing ship to get to Canada. They were driven out by what they called beagles, or dogs; 'their houses were burned out,
they were driven on to the seashore, and they were driven into the sea. That is what the Highland lairds did, and I hope the Noble Lady is not going to defend, although she is the wife of the Duke of Atholl, what the dukes and duchesses —the Duchess of Sutherland—did in those days.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): May I ask the exact bearing of these remarks upon the Scottish Agricultural Department's Estimates?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: For brass face that is the limit, to rise up and ask me that, when it was the Noble Lady who interrupted. That is the explanation of it, and, if the hon. Member has the courage to challenge me, let him have the courage to challenge the Noble Lady. With that little interlude, I will get on with the main question, but I am not going to let duke or duchess or anyone else get away with it in that fashion; not even the Secretary of State for Scotland. I would like to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, when he is replying, to tell the Committee, and through the Committee to tell Scotland, how many people are working on the land in Scotland to-day and how many were deriving their livelihood from the land in Scotland in 1920. It may be that he cannot do that at the moment, but I would like to get those figures.
There is another matter. The Secretary of State for Scotland and some of his supporters thought I should not have mentioned Russia in this connection, but I want to draw attention to this fact, in view of all the satire that hon. Members opposite pour on Russia. I am not one to defend Russia as against Scotland. I will defend Scotland against the world if necessary, and that is why I am so anxious that those who are working in the interests of Scotland should give Scotland of their best. The Russians have gone out of their way to get the very best information that they can on all the snags that they come up against, and to put that information into practice. The Noble Lady is an expert in this House in having a go at Russia, but the, Russians would not allow any animal into their Empire—it is an Empire—that was afflicted with bovine tuberculosis. I wish that were the case in Scotland.
Further, Russia would not tolerate a laird in that country breaking up a pier. It is not I, a Socialist from the Clyde, who says that, but a. Highland laird and a Baronet at that, the right hon. and gallant Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair), who tells the Committee that the lairds destroyed the piers. The Noble Lady would have great trouble in finding the Russians doing in their own land so dirty a business as that. I have seen it all over the Highlands and in the Hebrides. I have seen the piers allowed to go to waste, and I have appealed to every Secretary of State for Scotland on behalf of those piers ever since I came into this House 12 years ago.
I have taken some interest in this idea of people going back to the land, and in my constituency I have thousands on the land. I make bold to state that I have the, finest allotments in Britain in my constituency in Clydebank, and it is because I had that experience, with all the drawbacks that are attendant on those smallholdings, because on those smallholdings the men were up against the drought, not simply this year, but last year, that I appealed on their behalf to the Scottish Office for water. The Scottish Office sent down their experts to view those allotments, and they came back with a glowing report that there was nothing finer in the country than the allotments in Clydebank, but we could get no grant for water. I had to go to another source and get water put in at the expense of a big employer of labour. I have told the House that already, and I do not want to make too much of it, as it is already in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Even with all these drawbacks the wonderful production of these holdings is a standing monument to the ability that lies latent in these industrial workers. In my constituency they are mostly just one generation removed from the soil. That is why I am so keen to get them more in touch with the land. The death rate in Clydebank is almost the lowest in Britain and compares favourably with the watering places—and that in spite of the depression from unemployment.
Land settlement should he properly organised and should not depend simply on men giving their spare time to it. I carefully watch the development of the idea here that men should spend their spare time on the land. There are a number of Members who are in favour of
men working all day in the workshops and spending their leisure time working on the land, together with their wives and weans. I will fight that system as long as I can, for I have seen it in operation. I have roved the Continent of Europe and seen the system in operation there, and I should not like to see our people reduced to the low smallholders' standard of life of France or to the system which exists outside Brussels. The men work all day in the workshops and live on little bits of land outside Brussels, to which they are taken by cheap transport. I grant that it is well organised, but it is so well organised that workmen who have worked all day have plenty of good hard work to fill in their spare time on the land. They might as well be dead.
Man's chief end is not to work. Man's chief end is to glorify God and to enjoy Him for ever. To work in the way that we Members of Parliament work is all right, but, if you have to work at the dictates of another, even for eight hours a day, you have done your day's work without having to work in your spare time. Work is all right if you can work when ou like and do the kind of work you like, but that is not the kind of work the worker has to do. He has to work at the dictates of another, and the sad thing is that he often has to work at the dictates of an individual who is mentally and physically his inferior. There is not very much pleasure in working all day under those conditions. It is said that it is nice for him to get into the fresh air and into the country after his day's work. That would not be so bad if it were always a beautiful day and a fine night, but that is not the state of affairs. He is under the canopy of heaven,
When chill November's surly blast
 Made fields and forests bare.
When it is chilling him to the bone he has to get to work and win the produce from the soil. It is a wrong idea that he goes on to the land free from the gaffer and starts work when he likes and stops when he likes. There never was a bigger mistake. Men are working under the most exacting of taskmasters when they are working with livestock. Unless those who are attending livestock are always on the job, not eight hours a day, but 24, nothing will more readily go wrong, because, of all things, livestock will not stand carelessness. Although I have put that picture forward, I still
believe that it is possible for us easily to have four times the number of workers on the land than we have now. My experience of smallholdings and plots in our country is that they are derelict land. There is ever so much good land in Scotland which is lying fallow and could be utilised. There is no better agricultural land in Britain, and that is saying something. Not only would it produce agricultural produce, but it would rear the finest men and women whom the sun has ever shone on.
It is possible in our day and generation to open up our country in a manner in which it has never been opened up before. One of the terrible drawbacks for people who love their native land and who would like to live out in the country is the loneliness of being far removed from human habitation. That has largely been got over by the wireless, a thing about which our forefathers who defied Imperial Rome knew nothing. When I and others like me go up into the Highlands, what are we met with? We are met with individuals who should be the backbone of our rural areas but who want to go to the towns. Their mothers appeal to us to get their sons into so-an-so's office, or into a lawyer's office in Edinburgh or Glasgow, or into some big engineering office as a clerk, or anything to get them away from the land so that the young fellows can come home at the holidays and the week-ends dressed up in plus fours and posing as something superior. We have to face that feeling and get rid of it. Men should stick to the land, stick to their native place. Let them raise Cain as the Irish have done in defence of their native land, let them fight for concessions, let them take an intelligent interest in the political life of their country and see that they have representatives who will make demands on the Floor of the House of Commons in defence of Scotland. Let them do that instead of running away and trying to pick a good job for themselves and sacrificing everybody connected with them.
We used to advocate light railways to open up the Highlands, but we do not need to do that now, for man's ingenuity has come to our assistance and given us motor lorries. Motor transport can be organised in the most out-of-the-way places that were never touched before by humanity, but which are now acces-
sible and in direct touch with the great industrial centres. The Scottish Office have a better opportunity than other Governments have had. It is no use them telling me that when Labour was in control they did no better than the present Government. The situation, like everything else, has entirely changed. The Labour Government was held up, no matter what they wanted to do. They were a minority Government. But this Government is all-powerful. I do not know of any Government in the history of this country which had such an overwhelming majority as this Government. That being the case, it is out of all reason for them always to be throwing back on us that the Labour Government did not do this when they were in office. They had not the power of the present Government.
I would like them to do what they are doing all over the country. They are making great preparations for a revival of trade. They are saying that they see round the corner now and that we are going to have a boom. I hope it is true. Private individuals hacked by this Government are staking their all in trying to give the country a lift, and I am backing them. I do not believe our country is down and out at all. I see the process at work in the building of the Cunarder. I see it at work in the building of great docks, not simply the graving dock that is to receive the Cunarder in Southampton; they have built up an entirely new line of docks, independent of the graving docks that they have, in order to cope with the new trade that they expect to have. These men are spending millions. It may be called private enterprise; but I am not quarrelling with that at the moment. The fact is they are taking the risk. They are viewing the situation as I view it, only they want to take advantage of it and make a profit.
As a Socialist I want the Government to go along the same lines and take advantage of man's ingenuity, of which we are joint heirs, and tap cur agricultural areas in Scotland in order to meet the demands of the industrial areas for food. In my opinion Scotland can produce the food for the Scottish people. There is no finer food in the world than Scottish food. Scotland can produce the finest beef in the world, and that means the pro-
duction also of milk, butter and cheese. I have listened to a lot of learned individuals in this House criticisng the Minister of Agrculture about milk, and speaking of the large consumption of milk in Sweden, Norway and other countries by comparison with the consumption in Scotland, but they have forgotten that the Scottish people are greater devourers of butter and cheese than the people of those other countries. The miner of Scotland has proved that cheese is one of the best articles of food. Cheese is what he carries to the pit with him every day, shut up in between Ids slices of bread; and there is no heatier type of man on earth than the Scottish collier.
It is the development of our agricultural resources in Scotland that I suggest to the Scottish Office, but not on the cheeseparing lines of giving 400 individuals smallholdings, when we have thousands of applications for them. The Government have not touched the fringe of this problem. The possibility of Scotland supplying the Scottish people with food has never been tested. Never was the opportunity easier, with all our modern appliances; and never was the Scottish Office as well equipped as it is now. Their Research Department in agriculture was never so well equipped. The Secretary of State for Scotland and the Under-Secretary cannot say they have not officials who are capable of the job. They are willing to undertake it, and have the ideas, because they have placed them before the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary. All the facilities are there if only the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary would go to the Cabinet in the spirit of those men who have spent their millions on the Cunarder and are spending their millions to build wharves and graving docks at Southampton. They are taking a risk, because there is not the trade there at the moment. It has been suggested that the Secretary of State for Scotland is underpaid. Here is a glorious opportunity for the Secretary of State, hacked up by his able Under-Secretary, to justify his existence by doing something big, something that ought to be done, something that must be done, unless Scotland is to become a derelict country. It is in the hands of the Secretary of State for Scotland to save Scotland from that fate. What does it matter—all this idea about making money, getting rich, getting a
good job, getting control of your fellows? That is what is being instilled into the minds of the youth of Scotland. Get on; walk over somebody else; get into place and power—even though it means leaving Scotland and coming to England. Get on! I know it will be said, and I do not deny it, that they are the victims of circumstances, but I want to change those circumstances. I want to make my native land a country the youth will not desire to leave, and will not need to leave. They must give their country of their best. They are not doing right unless they do give their native land of their best. It has the first call on them, the land that gave them birth. But after I have said all this, and have impeached all and sundry, the fact still remains that it is with the Scottish Office that the power lies to make our country a country that Scotsmen will desire to live in and not to flee from—to "flee from the wrath to come." The wrath is there—poverty.
I hope the Under-Secretary, when he is replying, will give some consideration to what I have said, because not simply in our great industrial areas but all over Scotland, I have never seen the Scottish people better than they are to-day, even in the mining areas and in the agricultural areas. It is because I see them so well that I feel satisfied that we have been repaid for all the money expended on social services—well repaid. They are a race who have withstood terrible depression, particularly during the last 10 years, and if Scotland were organised from the Scottish Office, not with a view to making a profit out of the energy and capacity of the people, as the farmers, the shipbuilders and the engineers employ them with a view to making a profit, we should make Scotland a better country and Scottish men and Scottish women better men and women. I know that people will smile at me and become quite sarcastic about these proposals; but there is a change in the outlook of men and women, not only in Scotland but throughout the civilised world, on the lines which I have put forward today; and it is in order that my native land may progress along those lines that I put forward this suggestion, hoping that it may penetrate into the minds of both the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Under-Secretary.

5.28 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Before I speak of the two sections of the agricultural industry with whose difficulties I wish to deal, I should like to refer to the claim of my right hon. Friend that the improvement in the price of oats is due to the much higher duty of 9s. a quarter which was imposed on foreign oats in December. My hon. Friend the Under Secretary will remember that it was some months after the imposition of that duty before there was any improvement, and during that period oats were coming into Scottish ports from Russia at a. price of no more than ls. 8d. per cwt., or 5s. a quarter. That continued for some time, and during that period there was little or no improvement in price, in spite of the higher duty. The improvement has come since Russian oats ceased to arrive in this country. For three months we have had no Russian oats, and it is during that period that we have seen the so far satisfactory improvement in price. I would therefore ask the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary whether they ought not to safeguard the Scottish oat farmers who depend so much on oats, from a recurrence of the dumping, at absolutely cut-throat prices from which they have suffered so much during the past two or three years. It will be very wrong if Scottish farmers are left without any safeguard against this.
I now come to the difficulties in the milk industry. One of my hon. Friends has already brought very clearly before the House the loss which has been caused to Eastern milk producers, large and small. A few weeks ago I told the House of a producer in Fife who, with a rental of £700 'a year, was losing at the rate of £1,000 per year compared with what he had been receiving the year before. That was when the levy was not more than 4d. a gallon. It became 5d. a gallon in May, and I do not suppose that it has been a penny less in June. I understand that 52 per cent. of the milk produced in June was used for manufacture, and that, I believe, is a bigger proportion than in any other part of the year. I can confirm having heard of producers who estimate that they are losing double their rents as a result of the charges that they have to pay. I ask the Under-Secretary to bear in mind continually that a great number of pro-
ducers in the centre and east of Scotland voted for this scheme on the assurances which they received from representatives of the Scottish Agricultural Organisation Society that the levy was not likely to reach ld. per gallon. That has been stated to me by men in my own area, and I have had it from men in other areas. It is a very serious matter.
Many producers in the East of Scotland also consider that they were not fully consulted in the early stages, although it was supposed to be a producers' scheme. It originated, I understand, in A public meeting or a meeting of producers called by the Scottish Agricultural Organisation Society, and held in the North British Hotel in Edinburgh. At that meeting, a provisional committee was appointed to draw up 'a draft scheme and to report back to a similar meeting. That provisional committee did not report back, and therefore many producers in the area hold that they were not sufficiently consulted. A great responsibility is thrown on the producers. They are asked to draw up schemes of this kind, which are very complicated matters. We who have a good deal of experience in drawing up things on paper and of trying to understand things which are drawn up on paper, may hardly realise how difficult it is for many men whose lives are spent in actual production from the soil to understand these schemes and their possible or probable implications. I have been concerned to find how little these schemes were understood by the men whom they were likely to affect in pounds, shillings and pence of their daily earnings.
The Act under which these schemes are drawn up throws too much responsibility upon the producer. We know that it gives an outline of such schemes; yet it says that a scheme shall first of all come from the producers. I should be very glad if the Under-Secretary would tell us whether representatives of the Board of Agriculture gave unofficial help at any stage in the drawing up of this scheme. I quite understand that it is impossible, because of the wording of the Act, for the Minister or anybody on his behalf to take such action officially, but I would like to know whether help is given unofficially by departmental representatives who have great experience in studying things on
paper. They might be able to help the producers to steer past some of what seem to be obvious pitfalls, from the point of view of the man who has to pay the levy. I should also like the Under-Secretary to think over the point as to whether, besides advice, it would not be desirable that a scheme of this kind should allow persons who have no interest in the scheme either way, to be members of the governing board. We have to recognise that there is a conflict of interest in this matter between the men with surplus milk for manufacture who will benefit from it, and the man who only sells milk for consumption and who will be likely to lose. That is a difficult business for a board composed only of producers, who are likely to have a majority on one side or the other, to work out, and it may be difficult for the minority to feel that they have had their fair say. I know that it is not possible to discuss legislation, and I do not propose to do so, but I would ask the Under-Secretary to consider whether a scheme under which such tremendous power is given ever the livelihood of milk producers should not include some disinterested element in a way which I understand this scheme does not provide.

Mr. SKELTON: The Noble Lady may be interested to be reminded that in the first year the Government appoint two representatives on the board, but that is in the first year only.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Is that the case with the body which was set up the other day? Does it apply to the provisional board or to the elected board?

Mr. SKELTON: To the elected board.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I am glad to know that.

Mr. SKELTON: The provisional board is now past.

Duchess of ATHOLL: It applies to the board which is fully elected; is that so?

Mr. SKELTON: Yes.

Duchess of ATHOLL: In any case, it might be better if some disinterested element could be included on the board, and perhaps the Under-Secretary will consider the point. It might be done by administrative action. I find it a little difficult to understand the announcement which the Under-Secretary made yesterday. As I understand it, it means, in the
main, that the Investigating Committee considers that the man who produces milk for consumption all the year round has not a permanent claim to special consideration as compared with the man who produces milk only in the summer, when his cows can go out to grass. But production in the winter is always more expensive than production in the summer;. I do not see how one can get away from that. Every dairy farmer knows that when you have to keep cows indoors it is more expensive than feeding them out on good grass in the summer. I am afraid that the recommendations of the Committee that the help given to these men shall be only temporary, will cause very great concern in the east and centre of Scotland, where the milk produced is chiefly of level quantity all the year round.
The anxiety that I feel in regard to the losses which the scheme is entailing on the level producer has not been lessened by the inability of the Minister of Agriculture to give the House any indication either of how much relief from the levy is likely to be given under the early clauses of the Milk Bill or of the additional burden which will be placed on producers by the later proposals in the Clause dealing with publicity. I cannot but fear that unless the Government take action of a stronger kind than the Investigating Committee have recommended, many dairy men in my part of the country will be unable to carry on a business which I am sure the Under-Secretary must regard as vital and fundamental for national needs.

Mr. SKELTON: Let me remind the Noble Lady that the action of my right hon. Friend is limited by the recommendations of the committee of investigation which is a statutory body whose recommendations determine the Minister's powers under the scheme.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I understand that my right hon. Friend has no power beyond what the Investigating Committee recommend?

Mr. SKELTON: Not to alter.

Duchess of ATHOLL: This is another matter which ought to be very closely considered by the Minister and the Under-Secretary, who must be cognisant of defects in this milk scheme which could not have been present to their minds a year ago.
I now want to call attention to the serious position of the poultry industry. During the last six weeks or so, hon. Members have been receiving very strongly-worded resolutions from various societies of poultry keepers talking of the desperate plight in which the industry is placed, largely owing, they say, to foreign imports. I know that the quantity of foreign imports has declined of recent years. There was a decrease of about 10 per cent. in the imports of poultry in the first six months of 1933 as compared with the corresponding period of 1932. But the fall in value of those imports was over 25 per cent. and thus the movement of prices was obviously much greater than the fall in quantity. If the first six months of this year are compared with the corresponding period of last year it will be found that there is hardly any decrease in quantity, but a fail in value of about 8 per cent. We are brought back always to the question of the price of imports, which deserves more consideration than it seems to receive. it is, I believe, an even bigger matter than the quantity. I dare say the Under-Secretary has seen the recommendations sent out by the Scientific Society of Poultry Breeders. They have made various recommendations under five heads with which I will not trouble the House, but all of them deal with foreign imports, the more distinct marking of foreign eggs and with tariffs and quotas. I hope that the plight of this industry is going to be very seriously considered.
Finally, I would say that the difficulties which have been experienced with regard to the Milk Scheme, and the fact that the Potato Scheme has not yet proved its worth, make me feel very anxious about being a party to bringing another section of the agricultural industry into a scheme before we have further experience of the working out of these schemes. I understand that the Poultry Reorganisation Commission is sitting, and that people are looking to that commission to suggest a scheme, but I feel that it is a great responsibility, boa' for the Government and for this House, to bring another section of the industry into a reorganisation scheme, as the price of getting imports limited, before we have had further experience of drafting schemes of this kind. I would remind my hon. Friend that no condition was
attached to the pledge given at the election of 1931 to limit agricultural imports by whatever means the Government considered to be most effective, and I regret very much that the first Clause of the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1933, laid down as a condition that the industry at home should have a scheme in preparation or in actual operation. I would ask my hon. Friend and the Secretary of State to think over that question very carefully, and to consider whether it's really consistent with their responsibilities to ask the House to press another section of the industry, which is in a very serious plight, into a reorganisation scheme before we are thoroughly satisfied that we know how the present schemes will work.

5.47 p.m.

Captain McEWEN: I speak for a constituency which may be said without exaggeration to represent all sides of the agricultural industry. Without dealing seriatim and in detail with the various interests concerned, I should like to mention in a general way two interests which are suffering at the present time under a very particular sense of grievance. Both of these interests have already been dealt with very fully this afternoon, and, no doubt, will be dealt with still further at later stages of the Debate. The first is that of milk. I know that the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary are fully aware of the difficulties under which the East of Scotland producers are suffering at the present time. I had occasion the other day in this House to call the attention of my right hon. Friend to the fact that a number of smallholders in East Lothian were at present in the position of being unable, on account of the levy, to pay their rents, and had so informed the Department of Agriculture, and I asked him what steps, if any, he proposed to take. The reply was that pending the report of the committee of investigation his hands were tied.
I accepted that at the time as being a perfectly justifiable and fair answer, but I do submit that there is in all this an imminent danger. It would appear that the hands of the Secretary of State for Scotland are tied. It would appear, on further investigation, that the Milk Marketing Board's hands are tied; and I venture to go so far as to say that it
would even appear that the hands of the Minister of Agriculture are tied. It seems to me that we are in danger of coming under the domination, not of the Hidden Hand, but of the equally sinister Tied Hand. If my right hon. Friend has not already seen it, I would venture to call his attention to a letter which appeared in yesterday's "Scotsman," signed by Dr. Chalmers Watson, who farms one of the historic farms of Scotland and is a great authority on all matters concerning milk production. He has several very pertinent remarks to make on this very subject.
The other interest, which I would only mention in passing, is, as the Under-Secretary will have already guessed, that of the poultry industry. I am aware that steps are being taken at the present time to deal with this matter, and I only hope that they may not be too long delayed, because I think it is obvious to all that there is one point at any rate which is common to both these industries, arid that is that they affect, very largely at any rate, the small man—the smallholder. It appears to me that it is a weakness of all these marketing schemes that we have had recently, whether for potatoes, milk, pigs or anything else, that they are in their inception extremely difficult to explain and extremely difficult to understand, and it is from this fact that there arises at a later stage the reiterated and most regrettable accusation of bad faith against the Government. We all know that, in connection with the Milk Marketing Scheme, the constant accusation is that the producers who went into that scheme did so under false pretences, that is to say, that they were misled as to the reasons whereby they were persuaded to go into the scheme; and I think it should be the main object of my right hon. Friend and his Department to see that, above all, this most unfortunate impression is eradicated.
As regards what I may call the perennial questions of Scottish agriculture—beef, oats and barley—I do not intend to say anything this afternoon. Those branches of the industry are, largely thanks to Government intervention and Government help, in a position —I do not wish in any way to use exaggerated language—whence hope is not altogether excluded. There is, however,
one other question that I should like the House to consider. It was touched upon by the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) at the outset of his speech, but he did not carry the matter very far. That is the question of farm servants' wages. Although this is a Scottish afternoon, and there are not many here other than Scottish Members, I would like to remind the House that there is no wages board in Scotland. Although often in this House, when the question of farm servants' wages arises, the answer from the Front Bench is that there is a wages board, and that, therefore, the matter can be left to it, that does not affect Scotland, and I would add that a wages board is not even desired in Scotland.
The point that I want to make is that towards the beginning of the present year the Farm Servants' Union produced a scheme for collective bargaining. The details of the scheme were pretty widely known, and I do not think it is necessary for me to enter into them now, but the scheme was submitted to the Scottish Office, as well as to the National Farmers' Union, for consideration, and in February I asked the Scottish Office in this House what their attitude was towards the scheme. The answer was that, until agreement had been reached between the two bodies—the Farm Servants' Union and the National Farmers' Union—they were not prepared in any way to intervene. I quite understood that they did not want to be in a position of bringing pressure to bear on either the one side or the other in a matter of this kind, but I confess that I thought at the time, and I still think, that that was a great opportunity for arranging on a friendly basis a very difficult and ticklish question, and one, moreover, which it was peculiarly the business of a National Government to undertake, or at least to facilitate. I regretted very much, and I still regret, that that collective bargaining scheme was allowed, as it were, to lie on the table. I would venture to express the opinion that perhaps an expression of sympathy, or some expression showing that the Scottish Office, for example, would be prepared to facilitate by their persuasiveness in a friendly way the putting forward of this scheme, might have been of advantage then at the critical moment, and I hope that even
now it is not too late to expect that the scheme may yet receive from the National Farmers' Union the consideration which I personally feel it very richly deserves.
I see it stated in yesterday's newspaper that my right hon. Friend is about to complete a very far-reaching itinerary throughout Scotland during the Recess, and from that he will, of course, get an impression of farming conditions as they exist in those parts; but I would point out to him with great respect that it is not only from the islander hoeing his stubborn row in the islands, or from the constituents of my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) cultivating their peaty acres under the fitful glow of the Northern Lights, or even from the more southerly part of Scotland included in his itinerary, that he will gather the most complete and most living picture of agriculture as it exists in Scotland to-day. I venture to call his attention to the fact that, if it be his desire, no doubt on another occasion, to obtain so living a picture, he should come to the red soil of Berwickshire and to East Lothian, which used to be known, and still ought to be known, as the garden of Scotland. Might he not take a leaf out of the book of his colleague the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who, I understand, is to pay a visit to those parts, though not, it is true, for the specific purpose of undertaking a study of agriculture, unless certain investigations into the superficial soil of North Berwick links may constitute such a study? I only venture to press this and other matters upon the attention of my right hon. Friend because I have a very firm belief in his sympathetic intentions towards everything which is connected with the office that he holds, and I have also a very profound admiration for the energy that he shows in the execution of his duties.

6.0 p.m.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: I hope I may be allowed to preface my remarks by taking advantage of this opportunity to say how much anyone who is interested in agriculture in Scotland must regret that we no longer have the services of Sir Robert Greig. His wonderful knowledge of the subject, his balanced judgment and his wise advice over a long period of time will be very hard to replace, and I hope that, now that he has
gone into retirement, his knowledge will be made use of by the Government and will not be lost altogether to the nation.
I should like to know what is the policy of the Department with regard to the assistance that is given for agricultural drainage. In the last few years the amount that has been allocated to this purpose has been a diminishing quantity. There is no doubt that very great advantage has in certain areas been taken of the assistance given by the Government. It is not only a great advantage to the farmer to be able to drain his land at a saving of a quarter of the cost, but it enables him to employ labour at a time when it might otherwise be unemployed, and anyone who knows anything about the soil in Scotland must realise what a very large area there is that needs thorough and extended drainage. Within the last three years the, sums allocated to this purpose have gradually diminished—£15,000, £12,000, £10,000 and, in the coming year, £8,000. I should like to ask whether that is due to the fact that there are not applications coming in for the money or that the Department is anxious to make a saving on this head. If the latter is the case, I should regret it very much. I think the Department ought to take every step to advertise the advantages that can be gained by making use of this relief. To make any real and substantial progress under this scheme with a sum of £8,000 is obviously quite impossible. I would press on the Secretary of State the urgent necessity of doing everything that lies in his power to see that drainage is extended and, if it means the furnishing of additional revenue for the purpose, I hope that he will find a way to do it, if not this year at least in some future year.
There is another direction in which I notice that the activities of the Department have been somewhat cut down of late, and that is the experiments of the Macaulay Institute with reference to the reclamation of peat moorland. The reason definitely given is want of finance. It seems to me a pity that these very important experiments should be abandoned for want of the necessary finance. I do not know whether the experiments, so far as they have gone, have led the Department to believe that there would be little use in carrying them further, but I
can hardly believe that. I have seen experiments of this sort carried out on a very large scale in Denmark with most remarkable success, and what can be done in that way in Denmark I am sure can equally well be done in Scotland. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to say that the retardation of these experiments is only temporary, and that the first opportunity will be taken of giving them a good push forward.
The Department, with its multifarious duties, has done remarkably good work in research in a number of directions and in the educational facilities that it affords and the extraordinarily useful publications that it gives to the farmers. Now it has had the additional duty put upon it of looking after marketing schemes. To my mind it is obvious that any marketing scheme of the scale and magnitude of those that have been launched must inevitably disclose pretty big difficulties in the early months, perhods in the early years of their working. and it will need considerable patience and skill to overcome some of the difficulties which have been referred to, particularly with regard to the milk marketing scheme, where you have the east and west of Scotland, I will not say ranged in opposite camps but, at any rate, looking askance at one another already, and one hopes that the difficulties which have been already realised may be smoothed away if those schemes are really going to be what we hope they will be, that is, marketing schemes and not merely price fixing arrangements. One looks for something in a marketing scheme far more than fixing a minimum or a maximum price. One looks to see some method of leverage by which greater efficiency may be brought about in agriculture, and by which the inefficient producer will not be put upon the same level as his more efficient brother.
Now I wish to direct attention to the question of land settlement. I should like to begin with the bottom rung of the ladder, that is the allotment system. The growth of the allotment system is most remarkable. I observe from the review taken by the Department of the number of allotments granted by town and district councils that during the last year there has been a remarkable increase of something like 4,000 which have been counted, and there are others besides which have not been included. Then
there is the work of the joint committee of the Scottish National Union of Allotment Holders in conjunction with the Society of Friends where assistance has been granted during the year under review to 8,884 persons, as against only 2,300 in the previous year. Finally, we come to the departmental scheme for unemployed miners, where 120 plots have been provided, with applications numbering something over 2,500. I think those figures demonstrate pretty clearly not only the efforts that have been made to meet the growing demand for those allotment grants, but also how inadequate those efforts actually are to meet the demand that is growing from year to year. I need not argue the value it is to an unemployed man, for instance, to be given a plot on which he can work and produce something, and feel himself again a worker and part of the social structure in which he lives It is of the most fruitful lines on which we can approach the question of unemployment, particularly in some of the mining areas such as that in which the Department has made its first experiment.
I hope these experiments will be increased as quickly as land is made available and as widely as events may ailow. I do not think the question of cost should be allowed to stand too much in the way, because there is no better investment, after all, than bringing idle hands and idle lands together. When we have, as we unfortunately have today, so many thousands of unemployed men who are not likely to gain employment again in their own industries, this is a method of giving them hope and helping to re-establish them in the social structure out of which they have been shaken by the severe shocks to which it has been subjected. I look upon this as the bottom rung of the ladder because a man may very well begin to take an interest in producing on a small allotment and go on to an allotment of a larger size and, having gained his experience and realised what may be done by working on the land, he may go to the second rung of the ladder and get a smallholding. The Secretary of State has recently started the policy of instituting smallholdings in the neighbourhood of large industrial centres. The Bill which provided the funds for that policy met with a certain amount of criticism from these benches, but it was
by no means directed against the policy of extending landholdings, although we had something to say as regards the manner of attaining it. We sincerely hope that this experiment will prove the success that it is hoped and believed it will be.
I now come to the larger question of smallholdings throughout Scotland. The question of instituting smallhloldings throughout Scotland is by no means a new one, and when we look back upon the history of the last 22 years, I am afraid that we cannot be proud of the results which have so far been achieved. I have spoken on this subject from time to time, and have tried to urge upon different Governments that the question should be taken up as a great national movement on a far wider scale than anything which has been attempted so far. Unfortunately, things go,on from year to year with very little change. A few new holdings and a few new enlargements are made, and while anything from 150 to 200 or 300 new holders are settled, the numbers of applications coming in year by year are two and three times as large as the numbers settled. The figures which are published are most striking. During the last 22 years there have been no fewer than 26,000 odd applications for smallholdings, of which, in the course of time, 11,500 have dropped out for causes which are unknown. I should imagine that a good many of the people dropped out because they were tired of waiting for their holdings. In the 22 years to which I refer, the number of applicants who have been settled is only 6,249, an average of about 300 a year, and at the present time there are 8,749 applications still outstanding. There is no reason to stress those figures, as they speak for themselves. It is ludicrous that we should look upon these efforts as anything in the nature of a national movement worthy of being undertaken, if we really mean to take effective steps in putting people back on to the land.
We know from experience how well the smallholders in Scotland have been able to stand the storms and stresses through which we have passed. Failures are very few indeed. Now, when agriculture is being given a place in the social structure which it has not held for a good many years, when money is cheap, and when, unfortunately, the unemployed are
numerous and applications for new holdings are pressing—now, if ever, is the time when an extended system of land settlement might be taken up with hopes of success. In the boom years after the War, we made new holdings at a very costly figure, and sheep stocks were purchased at very high prices. Things have altered very much, and an attempt to extend land settlement to-day would have a very much better chance of success from the financial point of view than it had some eight or 10 years ago. In fact, from the purely material point of view, we should be getting in at the bottom of the market. This is the finest opportunity that has occurred since the War for really extending the system of land settlement. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) said, this is a matter which really extends beyond the Department. It has to be taken up with the push of the whole nation behind it. At the present moment the temper of the country is such that the Government do not hesitate to ladle out large sums of money to help industries which are in difficulty and to provide subsidies to help them to tide over their difficulties. I am sure that if the Government were to put themselves at the head of a movement really showing determination to extend the holdings on a far wider scale than has been done in the past 22 years, they would have the great bulk of the nation enthusiastically behind them.
If that cannot be done—and it cannot be done in a moment—there are things which can be done within the course of a very few months, with a result proportionate to the expense incurred, that will be entirely satisfactory. If the right bon. Gentleman will look at the number of enlargements which remain to be dealt with in the Western Isles and the crofting counties, he will see that there are nearly as many enlargements waiting to be dealt with as there are applications fornew holdings. It costs very much less to make an enlargement than to make a new holding, with all the costs of administration and of incidental expenses. There are certain counties in Scotland, one of which I have the honour of representing, where the number of applications for enlargements is very large indeed, and I would press upon the right hon. Gentleman the desirability of directing the
attention of his Department to the task of trying to clear off some of the accumulation of applications for enlargements of holdings. Nothing can be more unsatisfactory from the agricultural point of view than a holding of an uneconomic size, and one knows from experience that some of the holdings which were created in the past, and some of the holdings which have existed apart from those created by the Departnient, are of a size which would be very greatly improved, and obtain far greater stability than they have at the present time if the enlargements for which application has been made could be added to them. For this reason I would particularly ask the right hon. Gentleman to see if some definite step forward can be taken in dealing with the question of enlargements of holdings. We had the promise given us when the legislation relating to the new holdings in the industrial areas was going through the House, that the needs of land settlement in the crofting counties would not be overlooked. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will only be too anxious to implement his promise, and if he does it in the direction I have indicated by dealing with the large accumulation of applications for enlargements, he will be doing a piece of really good work for the smallholders who are scattered about throughout the length and breadth of Scotland.
I have said enough to show the lines along which I am thinking now and along which I have been thinking for many years past, and more to-day perhaps than in the past, as regards the question of extending small holdings in Scotland. As one looks at the conditions which exist to-day one realises more than ever the importance of getting the people who have been divorced from their industrial occupations back to the position of securing a chance of having a healthy life on the land. In conclusion, I should like to thank the Department for the assistance which they gave during the rather difficult negotiations which ended in the installation of wireless communication with the islands.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. JOHN WALLACE: I always listen with great interest to the practical contributions to our Debates which are made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shet-
land (Sir H. Hamilton), and I very largely agree with what he has said on the subject of land settlement, both regarding the smaller allotments and the larger holdings. He used an expression in the course of his speech which was of some significance. He said that agriculture is being given a new place in the social structure, and I am not quite sure of the implication of the observation of the hon. Gentleman.

Sir R. HAMILTON: May I make quite clear and explain what I had in my mind? It was that the 'attention of the Government was being directed far more to the importance of agriculture now than it had been in the past.

Mr. WALLACE: That is obvious, but the thought occurred to me that it was possible that the hon. Member, who always looks at things so fairly and from a, practical point of view, had possibly altered his attitude towards the benefits now being given by the Government to agriculture, and that he was looking with favour upon the kindly assistance of the National Government to our agriculture interests. If that is so, I regard it as a straightforward statement from a very important occupant of the benches opposite. When we were discussing agriculture last week, we had only a very few minutes at our disposal, and I wish again to refer to the bottom rung of the agricaltural ladder to which reference has been made. I do not see the Under-Secretary in his place at the moment, but there are one or two specific questions to which I should like a reply. Let us look for a moment at the small allotments scheme introduced by the Secretary of State for Scotland two years ago. The applications, as has been pointed oat, are very considerable, but the number of small plots is very few.
It is unfortunate that the Under-Secretary stated last week that this particular effort is still regarded by the Scottish Office is being in the nature of an experiment. I suggest that it, has got far beyond that stage. If he would be good enough to visit the small plots which unemployed miners and others are working in the Dunfermline and Lochgelly areas of Fife, he would learn something from those men as to the serious way in which they take their work and of their desire to develop it along the right lines. They are fitting themselves in every way for
spheres of more important agricultural occupation, and I suggest that the Scottish Office should put forward far stronger efforts in order to extend the borders of this scheme. I put to my hon. Friend on Friday a definite question to which I did not get a reply. I will put it again this evening. In my opinion, and in the opinion of gentlemen in Fife who are voluntarily doing everything possible for these schemes, the amount allowed to the unemployed allotment holder is too small, and in place of the £2 10s. allowed to the men, the sum should be not less than £5. If we take the actual number of allotments which have been let to these men and multiply it by five, hon. Members will agree that the amount involved is not serious, especially in these days of subsidies.
On the question of allotments I should like to acknowledge the great help which the Department of Agriculture has been to the men who are working the allotments. The Department has sent most efficient representatives, whom I have met personally, both to the larger holdings and the smaller allotments. Their help has been given ungrudgingly and is very deeply appreciated by the men. I should like to repeat that you cannot deal with a matter of this kind in terms of pounds, shillings and pence. The moral effect on the minds and bodies of the men of having allotments to work is almost impossible to exaggerate. They have a, distraction from the appalling conditions of unemployment and they are taking a definite interest in getting fruit from the soil, in raising poultry and in other foams of agricultural work. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who first called the scheme into being, will see that every effort is made to extend it, because its importance cannot be exaggerated.
On the question of the milk marketing scheme, I have no desire to cover the ground which has been so well covered by other speakers, but I wish to make one observation on what fell from the lips of the Under-Secretary regarding the report of the Investigation Committee. He said that the Secretary of State had no power to deal with the Investigation Committee except within certain limits, on account of the statutory authority conferred upon the committee.

Mr. SKELTON: I did not say that. I said that under the Statute my right hon. Friend's powers of altering a scheme were dependent upon the recommendations to that effect made to him by the Investigation Committee. He has no power to alter a scheme except upon the recommendation of the Investigation Committee. That is the Statutory situation.

Mr. WALLACE: That is saying in other words what I attempted to say, namely, that the powers of the Secretary of State for Scotland are limited on account of the statutory authority conferred upon the Investigation Committee. If that be so, and if the explanation of my hon. Friend is to be accepted—and I accept it at once—I do not think that it settles the question so far as the operations of the Milk Marketing Board in Scotland are concerned. The result of its administration the present time is positively disastrous in certain parts of Scotland. If the Government say that it is impossible on account of the statutory authority given to the Scottish Milk Marketing Board to change the administration, I cannot regard that as being like the laws of the Medes and Persians, unalterable. If fresh legislation is essential, let us have it. The Scottish Milk Marketing Board is composed of men who are connected with the milk industry, and if another composition is necessary in order to have a scheme that will be acceptable to the trade, legislative enactment will have to be made to bring that into being in some way.
I should like my hon. Friend to tell me how I am to answer the milk producer, either in Fife or elsewhere, who last year was getting 1s. 2d. a gallon for his milk and to-day is getting 1s. 2d. per gallon, less 5d. which he has to pay in levy. That means that the amount he has to contribute in levy will extinguish the total amount of his profits. What answer am I to give to that man? What prospect is there that his conditions will be altered in the future? Am I to tell him that these are difficulties incidental to the working of the scheme at the beginning, or may I say that action will be taken so that fairer conditions may obtain for the producer? I can assure the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary that this is a very serious matter so far as Fife is concerned and it is time the
question was faced, not from the point of view of saying: "All the necessary powers are in the hands of the Scottish Milk Marketing Board." That does not settle the matter and it will not settle the matter in Scotland. I am certain that bankruptcy lies ahead for a good many men in the milk industry to-day, and it is not the board that will be blamed for that but the Government. I should like that point of view to be borne in mind. I hope that I have not expressed myself too strongly, but I assure my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that the representations which have been made to me are so strong that I feel bound to speak perfectly frankly in regard to the matter.

6.38 p.m.

Mr. LEONARD: I should like to put one or two points which I put previously to the Under-Secretary. It is admitted that the reluctance on the part of men in urban districts to go into a country form of life is not so great now as it used to be. Although there has been a recognition of that fact, I am not sure whether a very conscious effort has been made to exhaust the possibilities of having more men going on to smallholdings from the towns and the cities. I would ask the Under-Secretary, if he can, to give a word in his reply to explain what special efforts, if any, have been made in that direction. There have been experimental schemes established relating to mining districts where the size of the holdings has in general been kept to about an acre. I suggest that there is a possibility of that type of man being capable of doing much more than the confines of one acre permit him to do.
There is another point on which I did not obtain a reply when I put a question on a previous occasion. While there has been a welcome departure on the part of the townsmen from the fear of going on to the land, there can be no doubt that there are some persons from the towns who go on to the land and who give it up. I do not know the number of holdings that have been renounced in the last year or two, but there have been certain holdings renounced. I should like to know whether since the last occasion on which I raised this question any further effort has been made to exhaust the possibilities of co-operative effort in farming. I put before my hon. Friend previously the case of an estate in Perth-
shire of 690 acres which had been worked by 12 men in full employment and five partly employed. By the application of the co-operative method of work, 50 men were employed all the time. I asked if the Under-Secretary and his Department would consider the isolation of some estate for the further extension of this form of farming in order to obviate the difficulties that present themselves when individuals are not so associated. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will deal with that matter in his reply.
The only other points which I desire to raise were put in the form of question some time ago, and I shall have to repeat them from memory. I am informed that the grant to landlords for houses and steadings differ in the Western Isles compared with other parts of Scotland. I think the figure given was that in the Western Isles, in the main, the grant was £100 to £150, whereas elsewhere it was round about £350. Speaking from memory, I think the reply that I received was that it would be unfair to direct too much capital to a district that would not be capable of meeting the interest upon it. I am afraid that the amount to which I have referred for houses and steadings may be incapable of providing in a district remote from ordinary civilisation certain amenities which attach themselves to housing. I should like to know whether there has been any departure from that attitude. The other point relates to State-owned land used for hill grazing. I was informed that so far as the tenancy of hill pasture was concerned on State lands the duty of draining lay with the holder of the land. I recollect that I expressed myself with regard to the comments that had been made by the Land Court that this matter should be dealt with better than it is at the present time, and I should like to know whether the comments of the Land Court have been taken cognisance of by the Department and whether greater strictures have been placed upon the holders of these hillside State lands than have been applied in the past.

6.44 p.m.

Captain ARCHIBALD RAMSAY: I should like to thank my hon. Friend for the answer that he gave me yesterday in regard to the report on milk distribution in Scotland. It seems to me that the present system, unless it can be made rather more flexible, is going to put into
inexorable operation the old principle that to him who hath shall be given, and that to him who hath not shall be taken away even that which he seems to have. I heartily agree with my hon. Friend opposite that the present situation is tending to set the east against the west. My Noble Friend gave instances of farms where there was an actual loss shown, which could be traced almost entirely to the milk levy, and I have come across several similar cases. I do not wish to enlarge upon this point. I thank my hon. Friend for his reply and I see encouragement in paragraph 2, in regard to the levy being paid for a short time, but I suggest that paragraph 5, in which it is laid down that no regional price variation can be entertained, seems to be the crux of the matter, and it may be necessary to take other steps to get at what is really the fundamental difficulty of the problem.
There is only one branch of Scottish agriculture with regard to which one can say that the Government's policy has been a failure, has been lacking in enterprise or has been lacking in drive, but I feel that so far as the important subject of oats is concerned it is true. I am sorry to have to raise Banquo's ghost tonight, but I am sure the ghost is not laid yet; it is behind the right hon. Gentleman's chair at the moment, and will be even more conspicuous in the months to come. It is no consolation to me that the price of oats for the moment is better. You cannot get a reliable reading from a thermometer from which the mercury has run out. There has been no pressure from foreign oat exporters to sell oats in this country for the last few weeks, but when the pressure was there, when there were crops to be sold, one has only to look at the returns to see that the steps which were taken in January of this year were not only not successful in reducing the imports from those foreign countries whose imports we wish to reduce, but that the imports rose in alarming fashion.
I will not weary the House with a lot of figures to show that in these critical four months the increased imports of oats were from the particular countries which grow oats under the most unfair conditions, and which are, therefore, the very countries against which our policy is aimed, but it is nevertheless true that the imports from these very countries have increased. From Chile they have almost loubled; from Germany they have in-
creased by 50 per cent.; and from Soviet Russia they have increased 4½ times as compared with two years ago, when there was only a duty of 10 to 15 per cent. At the same time that these enormous increases in oat imports were taking place, there was actually a sharp decrease in imports from countries like the Argentine, whom we wish to encourage, if we wish to encourage imports from any foreign country. It is also regrettable that the imports of oats from our own Dominions should have fallen so sharply. May I suggest that a duty of this kind, when we are dealing with countries which are determined to export their surplus crops, is not really the right instrument with which to solve the situation? I do not wish to make any suggestion which must involve legislation, but I do say that if you get a position in which you are up against the declared policy of a country to defeat any form of tariff and you impose a tariff, the only people you may hit are other people, who have not got the same form of State subsidy by which they can defeat any tariff regulations.
If we take our own country, Scotland, this policy up to date has been a failure. The acreage under oats in Scotland in 1932 was 807,000; in 1933, it fell by 11,000 acres, and then we had the extra legislation which was going to do such wonderful things. The result, according to the latest figures, is that the acreage of oats for this year shows a drop of between 20,000 and 25,000 acres, over and above the drop of last year. These are serious figures. When we talk about the policy of the Government we talk with pride about wheat, and show what has been done. On Scottish platforms we show that it has resulted in increasing the acreage under wheat in Scotland by 50 per cent. How much more satisfactory it would be for Scottish speakers to be able to tell their audiences that in their fundamental crop the Government had been able to do something of the same nature? Actually we have to tell them that we have not succeeded in alleviating the situation, and that in spite of any measures we have taken the drop in the acreage of oats is twice what it was two years ago.
There was a conference in Edinburgh last May, when this dumping of German
and Russian oats was going on, between the Scottish National Farmers' Union and oatmeal millers. I had the honour to be present. It seemed to me that, in the first place, there was an anxiety and a readiness on both sides to agree to other measures to deal with the situation, and, secondly, that there was an anxiety on the part of consumers of oats, the manufacturers of oat products, to work in cooperation with other bodies. I believe that a deliberate difficulty has been placed in the way of any such alternative solution by the feeders, those who rely upon cheap oats for feeding their stock. The right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that we cannot allow the feeder to expect his neighbour, the grower, to grow oats at a loss in order that he may get cheap food for his stock. I do not think that can be defended, but I have good reason to believe that this is the policy which behind the scenes they have actually put into execution by obstructing any method which is going to raise the price of oats. In addition, they have in maize a perfectly good alternative for oats and, therefore, they really have no ground for their anxiety as to the price of oats, because should the price rise to 22s. per quarter or higher they have a perfectly good and safe alternative in maize, which is not in the least likely to be affected whatever the price of oats may be.
Let me enter this plea with the Secretary of State. We thank the Government for the very remarkable duty which they put on, but we say in all seriousness that if they take the figures of imports and the acreage under oats, which reflects the position to-day more than the import figures, this policy, apparently, is a failure, and at this moment behind their chair stands the ghost of the crops which are now being grown. If they will watch the situation and prepare a scheme we shall be content. Have they some measures which they will be able to put into execution should this importation of oats by foreign countries begin again? Are the Government ready to act and take further powers, if necessary, to deal with the situation, because we cannot sit down quietly under a situation wherein the imports from countries which give subsidies are rising at a time when the imports from our Dominions are falling and when the acreage of oats in Scotland is falling by twice the speed it was two years ago.

6.54 p.m.

Mr. HENDERSON STEWART: The hon. and gallant Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Captain Ramsay) concluded his speech by putting a hypothetical question to the Secretary of State, which I do not think is possible for the right hon. Gentleman to answer. The oat position has definitely improved and I think we may well leave it there in the meantime. I desire to associate myself with the right hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) in congratulating the Secretary of State on his opening speech. I was grateful for his references to bracken and deer, about which I have been troubling him a little during the past few months. The answer he has made is welcome news. I am glad also that the hon. and gallant Member for Berwick and Haddington (Captain McEwen) raised the question of farm servants' agreements, and I want to associate myself with his request that the Under-Secretary of State will deal with that point. It is most important that farm servants should benefit directly from any improvement that may come to agriculture, and I shall not rest until I am satisfied that whatever advances are made in the near future they are shared fully and immediately by those who work on the farms.
I want to examine the vexed problem of marketing, but from a slightly different point of view. It is somewhat surprising that an innocent and innocuous beverage like milk should have caused so much excitement. I do not know whether in Angus or West Perth they put some other stimulant into it but, at any rate, it has raised considerable heat this afternoon. I have taken the view that same improved method of marketing was necessary, and I am satisfied that in time these various marketing boards will settle down to their business. The Potato Marketing Board has settled down quickly. I criticised the provisions of the potato scheme, but I look upon the Potato Marketing Board's activities with great admiration. They are setting about their task with enthusiasm and in a businesslike way, and I shall be surprised if this board does not turn out to be the best of the lot, because it is approaching its task not as a Civil Service administration, but as a business proposition. I understand that we are going to have another
scheme very soon for meat. That will be a most important matter for Scotland, as something like 50 per cent. of the total value of Scottish farm products is represented by meat and livestock. But, before that scheme is set going I hope we shall learn a lesson from the experience of its predecessors and that we shall not launch out upon another vast scheme without the most careful consideration.
Looking at these marketing schemes as a whole I seem to denote two main weaknesses. The first is that there has been a lack of proper preparatory work before the schemes were launched. I do not blame the Government; it is largely due to the failure of our statistical services to collect the necessary figures. The pig scheme, for example, was nearly wrecked in its initial stages through an extraordinary under-estimate of essential figures. The milk scheme, as was observed this afternoon, has forfeited the confidence of many Members of Parliament and thousands of producers because of the insufficient time and care given to the consideration of its consequences. I am certain that, if the milk scheme were to be started again, and we were asked once more to frame a measure, it would be a very different scheme that would be put before the House. That is the first weakness that I see.
The second weakness of these marketing schemes, and one which I realise touches on more controversial matters, is in regard to the system of appointing the members to the various boards. I am the last to suggest that there are not among agriculturists first-class men capable of running a first-class show. I know many of the leaders and have the greatest admiration for them, but I think it is now patent to everyone that it is unreasonable, if not impossible, to expect to find the executive talent to operate these vast new commercial enterprises in men, the limit of whose responsibility in the past has been a 200-acre farm. It is unfair to expect it, and therefore I am very doubtful of the wisdom of the elective system of appointing these various marketing boards. After all, the Marketing Board for milk, bacon, pigs and so on is not just the private concern of farmers. We are all in it. The farm workers are in it, the shipbuilders, and every one of us. This year we have raised a total of —20,000,000
that we are giving to agriculture. Some of it is farmers money, but the bulk of it is townsmen's money, and therefore it is essential and urgent that the House of Commons should examine these things. For the House of Commons when it has approved a scheme, simply to say, "Well, there is the scheme, we have approved of it, it is your business now, carry on" is not right.

Mr. SKELTON: I would remind the hon. Member that what we are discussing this afternoon has really nothing to do with the method of election under these schemes.

Mr. STEWART: I understand that, but what I am offering is a lesson for the future. We have assumed that, having approved the scheme, we can hand it over, and that is the end of it. Parliament will be bound in the future to take more direct interest in the management of these boards which are going to control these schemes, as well as to make a much closer examination of the implications and possible effects of the schemes when they are put into operation. We have no right to accept schemes drawn up by the Farmers' Union or anybody else, without submitting them to the most searching scrutiny.
May I say one other word in regard to what one might almost call the foreign policy of the Ministers responsible for agriculture in this country? For myself, have never budged from the view that, if any industry is to have protection, agriculture should have it. That is a view expressed many times by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), and I think all Liberals have subscribed to it at one time or another. When I came into this House I found a system of protection for industrial products already established, and I have never been able to see why we should deny the same assistance to the products of the farm. Therefore, I see no serious objection in practice to any of the schemes, quota and others, for the assistance of agriculture which have been presented to us. I cannot help thinking, of course, that it is a calamity that we in this country should be obliged to adopt such mutually destructive measures, destructive to us and to other countries, but, if other countries have gone economically mad, we are bound to take some measure of safeguarding.
My difficulty is not with regard to the rights or wrongs of any single scheme, presented to us in this House on behalf of agriculture. The meat subsidy, for example, can, I think, be justified on the grounds of emergency, as also can the others, but I am a little concerned as to how these various and varied measures dovetail into each other, and I am going to ask my hon. Friend to help me in the matter. Constantly I ask myself: Where are we going with these schemes? What is the central objective to which we are moving? What is the plan behind these varied measures of tariffs, quotas, levies and subsidies? It seems to me, I cannot help saying, rather like a jig-saw puzzle, the parts of which do not fit, and sometimes even seem contradictory of each other. To-day there is piloted through the House a Measure that a year ago we were told it was impossible to consider. One cannot help feeling, when one thinks of the subject, and I ask my hon. Friend to believe it, that this concern is shared by the great majority of Members in this House. I would like to know where these schemes are leading us, and it is high time somebody in the Government made such a declaration.
I say that in a most friendly spirit. We boast in this country of our democracy. As we look to events in other countries in the last few hours, we are proud to have a democracy, but it will only work if you keep it informed, not only of what you are doing, but of the broad principles that guide your action. If you treat democracy with titbits of unrelated policy, as if you were handing mixed caramels to children, you will go wrong. I would like the hon. Member, if he can, to answer this question: How far do the Government intend to go on the road to self-sufficiency? How far is it intended to restrict imports? How far is it intended to encourage exports In other words, the simple question is: Where are you going to strike the balance in this economic policy? It is a matter of great importance, a matter of life and death to Scotland, with its industrial and agricultural interests, and I ask my hon. Friend with all seriousness and with the greatest friendliness to give me some answer.

7.10 p.m.

Lord SCONE: This afternoon a great many speakers have devoted a considerable amount of time to the question of the milk marketing scheme especially in regard to the eastern part of Scotland, and it is so vitally important to all producers in that area that I do not think I need apologise for dwelling on it a little longer. We very much regret the conclusions to which the Committee of Investigation have come, more especially because of the way in which they were bound by the comments of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State, and I would ask the House to consider, as briefly as may be, these conclusions and what they mean. In the first place, the Committee have decided apparently that there is really no merit. attached to the level producer as against the seasonal producer. That, I submit, is a most unfortunate conclusion, because it is the level producer who is the backbone of the industry. He does not produce the surplus of milk which has brought about most of the troubles of the industry. His tasks are accordingly exceedingly high, and it seems that he will be put in a worse position than the seasonal producer who has done so much to cause the trouble. We have the recommendation that some provision should be made by means of an additional payment per gallon or otherwise for a specific limited period. What is a specific limited period? I hope the right hon. Gentleman, while making it specific, will not make it too limited. I myself think a period of two years would be the minimum effective period. That will give us sufficient time to find out whether the other activities of the Milk Marketing Board are likely to lead to such an improvement of the general position that any such special provision for the level producers will by then become unnecessary.
I do not think anyone has yet drawn attention to Section (4) of the Committee's recommendations:
We see no objection in the public interest to the continuance of the system whereby the board have contracted for a minimum butter fat content in excess of the legal minimum of 3 per cent.
I think that is a rather remarkable conclusion. Of course, everyone wishes to get the quality of milk better as time goes on, and there is certainly no objection in the public interest to the butter fat content being improved, and every
effort being put forward to maintain the improvement; but surely it is rather harsh treatment and rather unjustifiable on the part of the Milk Marketing Board to suggest that a producer should be penalised when he produces milk which has been accepted by the right lion. Gentleman in his capacity of Minister of Health for Scotland and accepted by medical officers of health as being first-class milk and all that the human frame requires. I think this recommendation is very unfortunate, and, if in the future people are to be penalised because their milk is not up to the board standard, although it is perfectly good legal quality, a grave mistake will be made and immense injustice inflicted.
I should also like to associate myself with the regrets expressed by the hon. and gallant Member for Peebles (Captain Ramsay), that it has not been thought practicable to institute a system of regional prices. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) was not far out when be said that east was against west in this matter. It is not that there is any animosity between the two areas, but the interests of the milk producers of these two districts are so completely diverse that I regret it has not been possible up to the present time to separate these areas and to give these unfortunate people in the east of Scotland a chance of carrying on, which it seems to me is going to be a matter of extreme difficulty for most of them in the future. Here I would like to put one question to the right hon. Gentleman. It may be a hypothetical question, but I think it is one which has some bearing on the present situation: What is to be the attitude of the Government supposing that there is a partial, I will not say a complete, collapse of the milk producers in the East of Scotland? Suppose that there is a sort of strike, produced simply by the conditions under which they are producing, that is that they will be unable, not merely not to make a profit, but to make both ends meet. I very much hope that that possibility, which now is almost amounting to a probability, will be borne in mind, and that if necessary steps will be thought out in advance to discount it without undue unfairness to those who are moved not by hostility to the scheme but by the sheer desperation of their economic position.
One twill expect to hear certain strictures on the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. H. Stewart) for his very extraordinary remarks. I cannot feel that those who produce milk or oats within his constituency will be very grateful to him for the daring way in which he has sought to brush aside the very difficult situation in which they find themselves. I do not possibly go quite as far as one hon. Member who has spoken in regard to the uselessness of the Government's policy for oats, but to endeavour to maintain that there is no danger whatever to the oat producer in future, and that the menace of dumped grain has gone for good and all, is to show a lamentable lack of knowledge of the situation.
It is true that the generous tariffs put on oats, for which we are grateful, did not have the immediate effect that they ought to have had. That was simply and solely because of the dumping of Russian grain brought in at the price of 5s. per quarter—a perfectly absurd price from the economic point of view. Together with the duty of 9s. a quarter it made the price 14s. The recent very satisfactory rise in price has been caused largely by the fact that there is, as usual at this time of year, a shortage of the amount of marketable oats in Scotland, and also to the fact that the Russians are not dumping at the present time and have not been doing so for some time past. But should that dumping start again in the autumn at a ridiculous price there is nothing whatever that can stop the price of oats going down once more to a figure that is altogether inadequate. It would be out of order to suggest any legislative restrictions, but I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that friendly representations might be made to the Russian Government that any such line of conduct would not be exactly the best way in which to try to get trade advantages for themselves in future. If a flood of dumped oats can be prevented from coming in I think there is no doubt that the price will remain a remunerative one for the producer, and in view of what he has had to put up with in the past such a remunerative price is very long overdue.
As regards agriculture generally in Scotland to-day, it presents a two-faced appearance. If one regards the financial position of most farmers at the moment,
and if one were to judge the future from that, the outlook would be indeed a black one; but when one sees the upward tendency of prices and considers what has been done very recently for the various branches of the industry, it becomes more than apparent that the present dark cloud has a silver lining, and we hope that before long it will completely efface the dark cloud. The price of oats has now risen to a satisfactory or fairly satisfactory figure.

Mr. H. STEWART: The Noble Lord has said precisely what I said. At the present moment the price is perfectly satisfactory.

Lord SCONE: The hon. Member specifically brushed aside the possibility of anything of the kind happening in future. That shows an airiness which is by no means consistent with the facts. We have just had a Bill which has done a great deal for the beef producer, who has suffered for a long time. I spoke on this subject two days ago, and I shall not repeat my words. In the past few days I have been in Perthshire and Dumfriesshire, and the meat producers there have now a hope which they have not felt for years past. The Bill is a most welcome Measure and one for which the Government deserves and is getting the sincere thanks of all who are in the industry. As regards poultry, it is true that the position is by no means satisfactory. In the last few weeks I have had many representations from my constituents. A commission is sitting to investigate the position, but I think it would be well for the Secretary of state, in concert with the Minister of Agriculture, to examine the position very carefully, and to see whether some emergency measures are not required to bridge the period between the present difficulty and the date when any action can be taken on the recommendations of the commission.
The prices of live sheep have kept up very well, thanks to Government action again. We have comparative prosperity in the fruit-growing section of the industry. One sees also that potato prices are becoming considerably less unsatisfactory. We have some cause, therefore, for believing that Scottish agriculture is at last getting round the corner. We all wish to see it in a. very much better state, and we all associate ourselves with the sentiments
of the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) on that point. It is very unfortunate that the hon. Member and his friends of the Opposition, while they are, I believe, honestly anxious to improve the situation of Scottish farmers and the wages and conditions of the agricultural workers, have sought to put their theory into practice by opposing with the utmost vigour every one of the remedial efforts which the Government has undertaken. Theory and practice in their case have been by no means coincident. I am sure that if the hon. Member and his friends really understood the position, and that if their knowledge were equal to their desire to help, we should nave a great deal more co-operation from them in the future.
While the position is as I have stated, I realise that there is still a long way to go. The road that agriculture has to traverse is mostly stony and all the way uphill. But what has been done has been of the greatest advantage. A point that all hon. Members who support the Government ought to make clear throughout the country is that one must not measure the success of the Government's agricultural undertakings merely by the rise in prices in various branches of the industry. One must consider what would have happened had those various proposals for helping the industry not been introduced. We can say that we should have had oats at under los. a quarter; mutton would have slumped as beef has done; and, if we had riot had restrictions in regard to beef exports, instead of having cattle at 35s. or more per live cwt. we should have had a price of 25s. or even 20s. The agricultural industry is very grateful indeed for the very strenuous efforts which have been made on its behalf by the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary and the Minister of Agriculture. There is a great deal more still to be done. What has been done has been of the utmost advantage, and at last we are beginning to move towards a condition of things in which a farmer will again be able to make both ends meet, and the labourer will enjoy the higher wages to which his long hours and the conditions of his work undoubtedly entitle him.

7.27 p.m.

Mr. SKELTON: We have had an interesting Debate which has covered a
wide area. I would like to express on behalf of the Secretary of State and myself our appreciation of the tone in which right hon. and hon. Members have addressed themselves to this topic, the constructive suggestions that have been made, and the recognition there has been that, however wide may be the divergence of view between us upon the main structure of policy within which administration is contained, still it is part of the task of Scottish Members of Parliament to work together for the good of what is after all the most important industry in Scotland. I welcome in particular the tone with which the right hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) opened his interesting speech. If I seem to take up his challenge on various points I do not do so in any provocative way, but because we know that he is "a bonnie fechter." He referred to the differences I had with him in a previous Debate. I assure him that nothing would be more against my feelings than to misrepresent him, and I hope I did not in any way misrepresent him.
Let me turn to the very big topics raised in the discussion, and let me clear up a variety of questions which have been addressed to me. With regard to Highland land settlement, we are fully impressed with the importance of carrying on the policy of enlarging holdings. We are entirely at one with the right hon. Member for Caithness that nothing is worse than a holding of an unsuitable size. We have said quite categorically that no opportunity will be lost to enlarge holdings where that is possible, and the importance of putting it in that particular phraseology is that it is only when there is an opportunity that we can enlarge. Land must be vacant, and it is only when there is a vacancy that we can enlarge. Even then we have to be certain that we are doing it at reasonable cost. Within those qualifications I reiterate that we are determined to carry on the work of enlarging the holdings wherever it is possible.
My right hon. Friend and I appreciate what has been said on the subject of plots. We believe that in this respect we are in the fortunate position of having instituted an experiment of value and of far-reaching importance. My right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and
Sutherland rather chided me for using the word "experiment," but I did so in order to put a brake upon myself because I am sure it would be a mistake to close the door to any further suggestions or ideas upon this matter. But I would like to add that the experience of the first year, during which I had an opportunity of seeing many of these plots, has been very remarkable. The experience of the second year so far is, I think, satisfactory and indeed in many ways more satisfactory than anyone could have expected because of the large extent to which loans for seeds and so forth have been repaid before the time for repayment was up and also because there has been such a tremendous effort on the part of the plot-holders to keep up with the payment of their rents. A further ground for satisfaction is that the demands in the second year have so greatly exceeded those of the first year. The plot-holders themselves feel that this is valuable and a beneficial effort and are responding in the most remarkable way.
I recommend any Scottish Member who finds himself in West Lothian or near Edinburgh in the course of the Recess to visit the plots at Oakbank where a piece of rough field has been converted into what looks like a model poultry farm, almost. entirely by unemployed men. If I still use the word "experiment" it is to hold in check my own hopes and beliefs. I do not think that any other questions relating to land settlement were raised except those put by the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Leonard). I propose to deal with his four questions by means of correspondence and discussion with him, because they are all detailed and some of them are rather technical. I know that the hon. Member wants definite answers and I shall do all I can to provide them before we adjourn. I quite understand that everybody who is going to get the advantage of a grant for any purpose likes that grant to be for as high a proportion of his total expenditure as possible. That is a generalisation about human nature which we may permit ourselves, but it is necessary to fix a limit of some sort, and we think it is not unreasonable to say that the grant for drainage should be 25 per cent. of the total expenditure. Other Governments and other Secretaries of State might select other proportions,
but for our part we have selected 25 per cent., and it is a most valuable addition—

Sir R. HAMILTON: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the number of applications for the grant has actually decreased

Mr. SKELTON: I could not say with certainty at the moment, but I may be able to answer that question before I conclude. It may be that during the slump, fortunately short-lived, in the price of sheep and mutton the sheep farmers regarded any extensive drainage operation as a, more alarming proposition than would be the case ordinarily, but with the steadily rising price of sheep and mutton I think, if there has been any drop in the number of applications, it has not necessarily been in connection with the proportion of the grant.
One of the principal topics in this Debate has been the milk marketing scheme and indeed marketing schemes in general, and from the lips of the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) there fell a series of questions which were all addressed to me but might very well have been addressed to the hon. Member himself with the addition, "Why did you vote for all these?"

Mr. H. STEWART: I answered that question. I said they were justified on the ground of emergency.

Mr. SKELTON,: And that 5s the answer which I shall make to my hon. Friend. I do not propose in a Debate on the Scottish Estimates to attempt to make a statement of future policy or deal with the main objectives of the agricultural policy of the National Government, and I think the House will be with me in that view. Let me turn to the marketing schemes which have been mentioned. It must never be forgotten that no marketing scheme comes into existence until it has received a large majority of the votes of the. producers concerned. Before it is submitted to that poll it must have been fathered by a responsible and representative body of the producers. It must undergo, if necessary, examination by public inquiry, and the most scrupulous care is taken with its clauses and conditions then. A marketing scheme in existence is not a Government scheme or
a bureaucratic scheme or a Civil Service scheme. It has the imprimatur of the producers, and it is for that reason that the Act Paid it down that normally a scheme could only be altered by a poll of the producers. That has to be kept in view. That is the normal way of altering a scheme, and where there is a provision enabling my right hon. Friend to make any alteration, that provision is hedged about so narrowly with qualifications that he can only alter the scheme if the committee of investigation recommends him to do so. But the reason for all that is that this a democratic structure based upon the producers' own votes.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind my point as to a conflict of interests in connection with the milk scheme?

Mr. SKELTON: I make these general observations as a, preliminary, 'and I now turn to the milk scheme itself. It is the case that the committee of investigation has had under review a number of questions brought before them by the milk producers in the East of Scotland, and I should say that one of the most important of these is the question of the amount of the levy. Do not let us forget that there have only been two months in which the levy has risen to the height of 5d. There was one month when it was 4d., but there have been several months in the autumn and the winter when it went down to 2d. It is the object of the scheme that something should be done to deal with the problem of the summer service of milk, and it is true that in the summer months, in the one complete year in which the scheme has been in existence, the levy has reached the height of 5d. It is not for me to say, and I have no evidence to support any such suggestion, that in any particular month the levy, which is reviewed from time to time, will fall from its present height. But I can say that from the experience of the past year there is no reason for us, as ordinary practical people, to suppose that the level throughout the whole year is going to remain at the June and July figure.
The House will remember that in the Measure which we recently passed certain sums were given with regard to milk used for processing purposes. I do not think it is possible to give in actual
figures the effect of those sums upon the levy, but I am told that it is estimated in Scotland to amount to something like one-third of a penny per gallon on the levy. I give that figure with the utmost reserve, but, if it turns out to be correct, then that is a factor which will reduce the levy independent of the milk situation in general. Therefore, while one can appreciate, and the committee of investigation obviously does appreciate, the position of the level producer, mainly though not exclusively in the East of Scotland, it would be a mistake to assume that because the levy is 5d. in the month of July it is always going to be at that figure.

Mr. WALLACE: May I inform the hon. Gentleman that in the winter the complaints of the level producers against the levy were almost as strong as they are at the present time?

Mr. SKELTON: I must say that I do not myself recollect that to have been the case.

Mr. WALLACE: It was in March that I brought this matter to his notice.

Mr. SKELTON: That may be so, but I think the complaints have increased in volume as the levy has risen.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Is it not the case that a great many of the producers voted for the scheme on the understanding that the levy would not be more than one penny per gallon?

Mr. SKELTON: That is not a matter with which the Government are concerned. I regret the extent to which, through more than one speech the idea has seemed to run that in some way the Government are responsible for the high levy and for any trouble that there is in the scheme, whereas as I say this is a producers' scheme.

Captain SHAW: But is it not the case that the Secretary of State said that this and other schemes were being pushed forward by the Government?

Mr. SKELTON: I think if my hon. and gallant Friend examines my right hon. Friend's observations in the OFFICI REPORT he will find that they hardly bear the construction which he is putting upon them and he can scarcely take these two or three words and put them against all his own knowledge and experience in these matters. As a matter of fact,
whenever a scheme has been ripe for Parliamentary decision, we have always taken care that steps were taken to have a decision reached by Parliament at the earliest moment. But as for using any pressure or being in a position to use any pressure on producers to vote for or against a scheme—if that is the meaning which my hon. Friend is going to attach to the language used by my right hon. Friend, all I can say is that his words do not bear that meaning.

Mr. WALLACE: And nobody thinks that.

Mr. SKELTON: As I say, the schemes are producers' schemes and everybody concerned ought to realise that fact and ought not to forget it.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Is it not a fact that a great many producers in the Eastern parts of Scotland voted for this scheme only because of the condition laid down by the Government for the limitation of imports?

Mr. SKELTON: I do not think my Noble Friend will expect me to enter into the motives why these voters voted as they did, but while reiterating, with all the force at my command, that these schemes are producers' schemes, my own impression is that at the moment, when the levy is at its high summer level and, for the first year or two, we should be very unjustified in drawing the conclusion that the levy will remain at its present level. We have just received the report of the investigating committee, the findings of which I read to the House yesterday in answer to a question. What is the view of this responsible body as to the level producer? Their view is that there should be a period during which the level producer does get some relaxation and that that period and the amount of relief that he is going to get should be the subject of negotiation between the Milk Board, the producers of other areas, and the federation which represents the level producers. That appears to us to be a practical solution. It is a, matter for negotiation, and it would be quite out of place to suggest either what the relief should be or what the period should be, but it is a practical suggestion, and it is one which, if the negotiations, which we shall do all we can to bring into existence as soon as possible, are successful, will prove that the investigating committee
will have carried out their functions in a very useful and practical way.
Let me turn to say one other word on the subject of the marketing scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for East Fife seemed to have as a background to his observations a whole list of unsuccessful marketing schemes. I do not know where these exist. There has been the English hops scheme, a notable success. There has been the bacon and pig scheme, which, considering the immensity of the operation, has brought very great advantages to the pig producers of this country, and the only danger which has arisen in connection with which is that its success was so immediate that it resulted in such an increased pig population in this country as to bring to nothing all reasonable calculations of possible increases. That is not an argument of failure, but quite the other way on, and when I add that from such information as I have, I understand that this pig scheme is already doing the most important work of improving the type of pig, which has always defeated the British bacon industry, and when one knows the improved and stabilised prices that the pig producer is receiving, I say that there is a scheme which ought not to make us hesitate with regard to marketing in this country, but is rather an encouragement to proceed.
Broadly speaking, despite the anxiety of the Eastern producer in Scotland and, I agree, certain equivalent producers under different circumstances in the South, it must not be forgotten, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture has stated more than once, that in the view of the farmers or their responsible representatives themselves the English milk scheme has benefited at least 75 per cent. of the milk producers, and has unquestionably in Scotland, while benefiting the producers in the natural dairying districts of the West, prevented the risk of an absolute slump such as would have occurred from an increased surplus of milk. Although one cannot shut one's eyes to the heaviness of the, burdens that certain producers are bearing, it is too soon, when there have only been two months of high levy, and it is only a little more than a year old now, if my memory serves me aright, to say that the milk scheme is going to be a failure. I do not agree, and while my right hon. Friend and I appreciate the
public service of Members when they bring before the House and the Government the troubles of any of their constituents, I think it would be a mistake to take up a defeatist attitude about the Scottish milk scheme, because I do not think that even now, after this short period, the facts would justify it.
Now let me turn to oats, and here I must try to crack my rather damp whip against my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Peebles and Southern Midlothian (Captain A. Ramsay). He said some terrible things, if they were true, but I do not think they were quite true, if I may say so. His proposition was this, that although we have put a very heavy duty on oats, and although the price has gone up, it must not be thought that these two facts have any relation to each other.

Captain A. RAMSAY: I would not like my hon. Friend to get away with that. What I said was that whatever he had put on this duty, so long as the foreigners had oats to sell his duty did not have the effect of appreciably raising the price, but only since those foreign stocks have been exhausted.

Mr. SKELTON: My hon. and gallant Friend said that it has only been successful when there has been no foreign stuff coming in, but he never suggested that the decrease in imports for the recent months of this year as compared with the equivalent months of last year might have something to do with our imposition of a heavy duty. If he had been able to say that these were the months when foreigners never did import oats, he would have had a good argument, but what are the facts? I will take the months of March, April, May, and June of this year, and I will give the figures of imports. They were: in March 250,000 cwt., in April, 163,000, in May, 190,000, and in June, 222,000. What are the equivalents for last year? 500,000 against 250,000, 557,000 against 163,000, 472,000 against 190,000 and 437,000 against 222,000.

Captain RAMSAY: I am not quite sore what figures my hon. Friend is giving.

Mr. SKELTON: I am giving the figures of the total imports from overseas, both Dominions and foreign countries, for the months of March, April, May and June, for last year and this year, and in each
of these months there has been a great decline this year as compared with last year. It appears to me that one would be wise to say that some of that reduction anyway is due to the very largely increased duty. Therefore, I will not accept for a moment the proposition that the duty on oats has failed, and I shall not enter into what we shall do if and when it should fail. In the meantime I think, without compromise or qualification, I can say that the Oat Duty, as far as one can test it for the short time it has been in operation, is succeeding, and the fact that it did not succeed at the very beginning, or that after the first rush there was a relapse, was due largely to the fact that there were large contracts or consignments at sea, and that the largest of the consignments was due. Indeed, we have heard from persons qualified to tell us in the trade that large consignments were in existence and at sea because the trade was anticipating an increase in the duty.

Captain RAMSAY: How does the hon. Member reconcile that fact with the drop of 20,000 acres under oats?

Mr. SKELTON: First of all, at seed time this year the price had not responded, and, secondly, with one exception there has been a constant fall in the, acreage of oats in Scotland owing to the decline in draft horses. With the decline of draft horses, there must be a decline in the demand, but one has to recollect that if the wheat situation is improving, there may be an increased demand for oats. The situation that has exacerbated the acreage question is due to a combination of a bad wheat situation with the general decline in the demand for oats. The latter you will never cure unless the horse beats the motor car, but the former I think you will, and we have taken steps to ensure that end. Let me only add, on the subject of Scottish agriculture as a whole, that I entirely agree with what my noble Friend and others have said that there are signs of rising prices for Scottish agricultural commodities, and also that our efforts have partly ensured that, and where that has not occurred they have prevented a further fall. The great example of the former is the case of sheep and mutton, and the great example of the Tatter is the price of beef, which might have fallen in a most catastrophic
way if we had not regulated and restricted imports.
It is often said that Scotland has not benefited by the Wheat Act, but that is hardly so. It has only benefited to a limited extent, but there are districts where the farming is what is called high and is, therefore, the most expensive to carry on and the most disastrous to change. The prolongation of the Eastern English Wheat Act up into the Lothians and Fife and Angus has brought real help to Scotland. There is one other subsidy this year which Scotland has made more use of than in the past few years. I refer to the beet subsidy. I am glad to be able to tell the House that this year there are some 8,000 acres under beet in Scotland as compared with some 1,500 last year, and it does look as if the farmers are beginning to appreciate the value of the beet subsidy, as they have undoubtedly appreciated the value of the Wheat Act.

Lord SCONE: Can, the hon. Member give the acreage for wheat in Scotland?

Mr. SKELTON: I am afraid I cannot at the moment. That brings me to my final point. My hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. H. Stewart) asked where we were going, why all these different methods, what was all this jigsaw puzzle, why here quotas, there tariffs, here a wheat scheme, and there a marketing scheme? The answer surely is that agriculture is not one industry but many, and that different products, and the proportions in which they are grown in this country compared with the amounts that are imported, demand different treatment.
If the House and those who are interested in agriculture—and this Debate has made it clear that they are not confined to the country districts but that there is a universal feeling that agriculture is now appreciated by the towns—will assess the value of the actions which the Government have taken and are taking for its assistance, they will find that the most striking feature of that action has been the variation of the methods which have been adopted. There has been an elasticity of method which reflects elasticity of mind and an appreciation of the variation of the circumstances. That variation of method has led hon. Members to raise the somewhat desolate question as to whether it means
mental confusion. It does not mean mental confusion, but political courage and intellectual adaptability. As Thomas a Kempis said, every sin shall have its proper torment. I think I have dealt with the main points in the Debate, and my right hon. Friend and I thank the Scottish Members who have spoken. The Debate will strengthen our hands, and Scotland will know that there is a unanimous feeling in the House of Commons as to the vital importance of agriculture to our country.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Will the hon. Gentleman reply to the specific question I asked as to how many men were earning their living on the land in Scotland in 1920 and how many to-day?

Mr. SKELTON: I can give the hon. Gentleman the figures if he will be content with 1921 and 1932. Taking regular and casual workers together, the total number of agricultural labourers in Scotland in 1921 was 127,000, and in 1932 it had fallen to 111,260.

Mr. WALLACE: I should like my hon. Friend to answer a question which I have put specifically on two occasions, namely, whether he is prepared to consider an increased allowance to unemployed miners who are being given small plots.

Mr. SKELTON: I apologise to my hon. Friend for not dealing with that point. We have considered this matter very carefully, not only since my hon. Friend raised the matter the other day, but also in the general administration of the plots, and we are satisfied on experience that it is better to restrict the financial assistance given to each plotholder within the present limits. The plotholders are making good and they are repaying, but I should be unwilling to add any other charge to the cost of establishing plots. If this is going to be a widely extended movement, it is of great value that we should be able to establish a man on a plot of one-third or one-half an acre at an expenditure which does not exceed £6. If that sum be doubled, we get into a different region of finance. If my right hon. Friend and I saw that the present financial assistance by way of loan were seriously cramping stockholders, we should consider the matter afresh, but the general evidence of one's own eyes is that they do wonderfully well upon the loans that we give them and that it is
much better not to burden a plotholder with loans of an undue amount if it can be avoided.

Mr. WALLACE: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I will give him evidence at a later date to show that they are being cramped at the present time for want of further financial assistance.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

Second Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

8.7 p.m.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: The object we had in asking the Government to put down this Vote to-night was merely to tie up some of the loose ends that were left in the Debate last week. Some hon. Members felt that there were one or two points in that Debate which might be pursued a little further. I know that the House wants to get on to the Ministry of Health Vote and to discuss ribbon development, and I do not wish to take up the time except to say two things which arise out of the Debate which took place last week. An interesting discussion was raised by the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) and the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) about bursaries. This is a matter upon which all of us in Scotland feel very strongly. Glasgow is not the only part of the country where there are instances of boys and girls who cannot go to Universities because the bursaries are not sufficient to enable their parents to keep them there.
When we are discussing the amount of money devoted to the payment of University bursaries, we should keep distinct the question of educational efficiency and the question of making sure that lack of means is no bar to a University education. It is suggested in the Annual Report of the Department that it is not a bad thing in some respects that fewer people are getting University bursaries. In so far as that is true, it is a matter in which the Universities ought to help the educational administration. Distinguished members of the Universities sometimes complain of a certain falling off in the educational standards of University entrants. It is for them to keep those standards up, and so
far as that is fight on grounds of educational efficiency none of us would complain. We complain that boys and girls who on educational grounds would benefit by going to the University, are prevented by lack of means. In so far, therefore, as economy may be justified—I do not say it is—by reducing the number of University bursaries as a consequence of any effort of the 'Universities to restore what some educational authorities think to be the lower standard of entrance to the Universities to the standard from which it has declined, we have no complaint; but in so far as economy is being carried to the point of debarring boys and girls from going to the Universities on financial grounds alone, we think it is a very serious matter.
I wish to support the remarks which the Secretary of State made in introducing these Estimates in regard to the Educational Endowments Commission. I am glad that he went out of his way to pay a tribute to the great public service which has been done by that hard working and much abused body. I have spoken on this subject before, and I think I have been the only Member to speak in support of the commission apart from the Members of the Government. Some hon. Members suggested that I was doing it because of my personal and political association with the chairman of the commission. That is far from being the case. As a matter of fact, I have never discussed this subject with him. I have taken the stand I have because I am convinced that it is in the interests of education in Scotland that there should be a real reform of the educational endowment system, and that, while all proper respect should be paid to many bodies which have administered these endowments in a real spirit of public service, more obstructive and less efficient bodies should not be allowed to hinder this work, that is so vital to the future of education in Scotland. One hon. Member suggested that there ought to be a statement of things done by the commission. There is an admirable statement in the fifth report of the commission in which, coming on the heels of the other four reports which they have published, a very full account of their work is given.
I do not want to suggest that the critics are not entitled to their due. It is
a good thing that there should be criticism and that the work of the commission should be subjected to public discussion that the public should have a lively and keen interest in the work that is being carried on; that it should not be carried on behind closed doors; and that there should be public hearing of the controversies over important issues which are being decided. Much of the criticism has been authoritative and weighty, and it is vital that full consideration should be given not only to the interests of the children, who must come first, but to the testators who have left their money, for this purpose, so that other people should not be discouraged from leaving bequests for educational purposes. Neither I nor any other Member claims that this commission is infallible, and those of us who admire the work it has done were pleased to hear the tribute paid to it by the right hon. Gentleman.
The hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Lieut.-Colonel Moore) criticised the provision under which the commission are entitled to bring under review wills made since 1920, urging that the date should be altered to before the War in 1914. I think that would be a great mistake. He said the attitude of people towards this question had changed since the War. If it has changed at all it is since the War ended, and so the present date is about right. He also suggested that there should be an appeal to the Court of Session, but Lord Mackenzie's Committee which inquired into the question, and on whose recommendation the Educational Endowments Commission was appointed, dismissed the idea that this was a matter suitable to be handled by the courts. I suggest, however, that it would be a good thing if the responsibility given to the Secretary of State as vice-president of the Council of Scottish Education could become effective at an earlier stage. It is a real responsibility, as the Under-Secretary has pointed out. It is a responsibility which I exercised to some extent when holding the office which the right hon. Gentleman opposite now holds. He has exercised that responsibility very effectively in the case of the Marr Trust, and it is astonishing to find that great authorities in education seem to disbelieve that it is an effective responsibility. I do not altogether agree with the action of the Secretary of State
in connection with Marr College, but I will not go into that question now. At any rate, that case does show that he has power to act when he thinks it necessary in the interests of Scottish education. If the views of the Department could be effectively brought to bear upon the work of the commission at an earlier date there would be a great deal to be said for that, and it might encourage closer co-operation between the Department and the commission, to the great advantage of Scottish education.

8.17 p.m.

Mr. LEONARD: I wish to say one or two words with regard to the feeling there is in Glasgow on the subject of the Education Grant Regulations. Last year there was considerable criticism by myself and other hon. Members representing Glasgow of the amount Glasgow received out of the fixed sum which is disbursed by the Department. Something was said regarding the advantages of the English method of the percentage grant, but that was not the point of our protest. Three factors which enter into the educational position in Glasgow were also put forward, but that was not a point upon which we were prepared to quarrel. What was felt to be an injustice, however, was the formula which has been adopted by the Department in the allocation of grants to the various localities according to what are deemed to be their needs. Last Wednesday I asked the Secretary of State for information as to the percentage which the grants payable under the Education Grant regulations bore to the net estimated expenditure for the year 1933–34 in each education area in Scotland. I am grateful for the answer, which provided a considerable list of authorities and gave details of the percentages.
I find that the amount received by Aberdeen County is 73.1 per cent. of its total expenditure. Banff receives 74.3 per cent., Moray and Nairn 69.2 per cent. and Perth and Kinross 56 per cent. It is not denied that those parts of the country have their special problems, and in order to be fair I should also quote the position in some of the burghs. Aberdeen receives 56.1 per cent., although I think it would be agreed that the urban problems are not very acute in Aberdeen. Dundee receives 58.2 per cent., although I am advised that the special services in Dundee are not so high as in Glasgow.
Edinburgh receives 46.1 per cent., though Edinburgh, again, has not the social problems of Glasgow. Glasgow receives only 46.2 per cent. of the estimated expenditure. As I say, it is not denied that the districts I have quoted have special problems of their own, associated with the scattered nature of their population, and what they have to do with regard to their teaching staffs. But we feel that whereas all those factors were taken into consideration when the formula was drawn up, the needs of Glasgow do not receive sufficient weight under that formula. Glasgow's special problems include the great amount of medical inspection which has to be undertaken, the feeding and clothing of necessitous children, and the schools for mental and physically defective children which have to be maintained. The special problems of Glasgow do not affect many other cities. Obviously, too, unemployment is one of the special factors there.
I have a tabulated statement here showing the special expenditure per head of the pupils in different areas. The expenditure per pupil on these special services in Glasgow last year was no less than 18s. 3¾d. In Edinburgh the special services expenditure was only 9s. 9½d., Dundee, 8s. 7¾d., and Aberdeen, 6s. 4d. I suggest these figures do lend colour to the complaint of the city of Glasgow that the formula is so framed as not to give due recognition to her special problems. The Regulations lying on the Table of the House show that there is an allocation of £25,830 to Glasgow. That is the sum which has been given to Glasgow since 1928. It is respectfully suggested to the Department that many things have happened since then, and that there ought to be a review of this grant. I understand it is the view of the Department that to alter the formula would put a penalty upon the rural authorities. Glasgow does not want to put any penalties upon the rural authorities, but, all the same, we feel that Glasgow's case ought to have recognition. Glasgow has been informed that in the past, when money was available, she was treated rather generously, and that when things had to be tightened up the burden placed on her was not so heavy as on other parts of the country. I respectfully suggest that that shows that Glasgow has a case. At any rate, it shows that her case has been recognised in the past. The Department
also claim that the present method allows a great deal of freedom to local authorities and recognises special services. So far as I can ascertain, Glasgow have not asked for any special sums for the services mentioned, but that the problems peculiar to Glasgow should be given weight in the formula just as weight has been given in that formula to the peculiar positions in other parts. It is suggested that as the block grant was allocated in 1929 without regard to the resulting rate, the same attitude should be adopted in respect of the education grant. The true index of equity can be found better by looking at the matter from a percentage point of view. Glasgow have pressed for a number of years for re-adjustment within the present arrangement, but if sonic satisfactory modification cannot be arrived at, Glasgow, I am informed, will have to change their attitude from a claim for re-adjustment to an insistence upon an entirely new method of allocating the Scottish Education grant. I trust therefore that some attention will be paid to this matter in the immediate future with a view to making a modification along the lines for which Glasgow have pressed for so long.

8.27 p.m.

Sir ADRIAN BAILLIE: I am very grateful for the opportunity of raising a matter peculiar to the county which I represent. The Education Committee of the county council of West Lothian are very perturbed about the education grants for the current financial year, arising out of the part restoration of the cuts which were imposed in 1931. Further, they are perplexed at the apparent failure of the Government to implement the undertaking which was made in the Chancellor's Budget speech last April that an amount would be refunded to the local authorities equal to half the restoration of the cuts in teachers' salaries. Either there is a grant sufficient to implement that undertaking or not, and if the total sum required has been earmarked in the education fund of Scotland, the distribution must have been operating unfairly in the case of West Lothian, because the amount of the grant has not been sufficient to cover the restoration of half the cuts.
The net estimate of the increase in the salaries bill for West Lothian is £4,300; half restoration of the cuts would cost
£5,240, but the net increase in the grants allocated to the West Lothian authority is only £906. The extra money which should have been available as grant, in accordance with the announcement in the Chancellor's speech of 17th April, and covering the period from 1st July, 1934, to 15th May, 1935, is £4,840. The deduction from that sum has been £3,934, leaving only £906 as the additional grant for the current financial year. These figures will not be news to the Under-Secretary, because the local authority have had a voluminous correspondence with the Department. The local authority are not satisfied with the replies that have been received, and I must say, with -all respect, neither am I. It has been stated that the deduction to which I have referred was independent of any adjustment of grant arising out of the restoration of cuts, but I would emphasise that the major item in the deduction of £3,934 was £3,137, which related to what I believe is known as "distribution of losses and gains" covering a number of teachers and pupils.
That leads me to what we consider to be a very real grievance, concerning the method of the distribution of education grants. One of the main items to which the Scottish Office devotes those grants is teachers' salaries. Not long ago, the Secretary of State for Scotland addressed an appeal—if I understood it aright—to the local education authorities in which he expressed the desire that they should study economy as far as possible, and they were especially to address their attention to reductions in the teaching staff. My information is that only two county authorities in Scotland have nobly and efficiently responded to that appeal. I have here a letter which I received a few days ago from the Director of Education in West Lothian, and it puts the position and expresses the feeling which we have in this matter.
The letter draws attention to
 the failure on the part of many of the education authorities to respond to the Government's plea for economy in staffing,
and states:
 There has actually been an increase in the number of teachers in Scotland instead of a decrease. It is true that the Department estimate a net increase of 1,300 scholars, but this should not have added 59 teachers to the total of last financial year.
The letter points out that:
 West Lothian in addition to saving, say, eight teachers for the decrease of 233 pupils on the roll, saved another nine following upon the request made by the Secretary of State. It will thus be apparent how West Lothian has suffered such a loss in grant as £3,137 incidental to the distribution of losses and gains. The only other area losing such an amount is the large county of Lanark. … On the other hand we find Stirling gaining in addition to their normal share of the increased grant a sum of £2,352 on distributional changes in scholars and teachers, the cities of Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Glasgow £1,408, £4,986 and £17,372 respectively.
I have raised this matter on one or two occasions with the Under-Secretary. On 13th July, 1933, desirous of being constructive and not destructive, I prepared a memorandum in which I submitted an alternative method for the distribution of education grants and which I thought deserved sympathetic consideration. I suggested, for instance, that the Department should require county authorities to submit the numbers of their elementary pupils, and that in each case the number might be divided by 40, as a fairly suitable size for an elementary class. That division having been made, the result would show the number of teachers which the authority should properly require. A larger allocation would probably have to be made for scattered rural areas, but seems, at least to me and to my local authority, that by 1936 or 1937 it should be possible throughout most of Scotland to arrange for such classes of 40.
I suggested at the same time that the county authority should submit the number of children that they had in post-qualifying classes, and that that number might be divided by 25, as representing the appropriate size for a post-qualifying class. As a result of that division, you would get the number of post-qualifying teachers to which the grant should be limited. I suggested that, if that alternative were adopted, it would not only be fairer to those counties which were really making an effort at economy, but the resulting economies could be allocated partly to increasing the basic allowance per teacher, and there would still be sufficient to allocate to sparsely populated and distressed areas. Instead of the Department saying to the local authority, "We will pay you so much per teacher," the Department might say to the local authority, "We will pay you in respect of the number of teachers Chat you have,"
after the formula which I have suggested had been applied. In other words, you would have a block teachers' grant, and, if a block grant is good in some respects, I cannot see why it should not be good in this respect as well.
The Under-Secretary, in his reply at that time, admitted that the present form of distribution was not entirely satisfactory, and that he had, indeed, six months previously, gone into such a formula as I have outlined, but had turned it down because of the practical difficulties. I quite appreciate the practical difficulties, but I suggest that they were no greater than those involved in putting into operation the De-rating Act. I repeat that I appreciate those difficulties, hut I would suggest to the Under-Secretary that his Department is dealing with those difficulties to-day. It is already making allowances to sparsely populated areas, and it is already making allowances for small schools, low valuations, and so on. I was informed at that time that the department were pressing local authorities to reduce their staffing arrangements. Surely the department must have some standard to apply to those local authorities whom they are pressing to reduce their staffing arrangements, and, if so, I should be glad if the Under-Secretary would, if possible, give me some idea of what standard is being applied to those local authorities who so far have not seen fit to give effect to the appeal of the Secretary of State. It seems to us—and when I say "us" I mean the local authorities and myself in the constituency which I represent—that the present system of education grants operates unfairly towards those authorities who are honestly endeavouring, within the bounds of efficiency, to practise economy.
There is only one last point that I would like to make. The fact that, in the case of West Lothian for example, the department's grant has been reduced by £3,000, does not establish any economy so far as the national finances are concerned. That is my understanding of the situation. The reduction in grant merely goes back into the pool, to be re-allocated as the department desires, or to be redivided among other authorities who have apparently been less amenable to the appeal of the Secretary of State for economy. I would earnestly beg the Under-Secretary to re-devote his attention
to this problem of the re-allocation of these grants, especially so far as the grants applicable to teachers' salaries are concerned—

Mr. SKELTON: I understood that my hon. Friend was referring, not to teachers' salaries, but to block grants for teachers.

Sir A. BAILLIE: The grant in so far as it is earmarked for the number of teachers concerned, at so much per teacher per head. I would ask my hon. Friend to re-devote his attention to that part of the grant, in order to redress what I seriously believe to be a great injustice to such depressed areas as West Lothian, which are doing their very best to assist the Secretary of State in carrying out economies.

8.42 p.m.

Lord SCONE: There are two points that I wish to raise on this Vote, and in discussing both I will be as brief as I can. The first is the question which has been raised by the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) with regard to children of marked ability being prevented by education authorities from taking up bursaries, because of the family circumstances. I quite agree with the hon. Member that wherever this occurs it is more than deplorable, and I hope that my hon. Friend will take immediate steps to investigate the position. In the six years during which I was a member of Perthshire Education Authority, we never had any case of that sort, because we took care that all those who merited it went forward to any institution for which they were qualified. One case that we had was that of a boy whose parents were dead, and who lived with his grandmother, whose total income was £30 per annum. This scantiness of resources did not prevent the boy from attending Perth Academy, Edinburgh University, a university in Germany, and the Sorbonne, at all of which he greatly distinguished himself. That was due to the fact that Perthshire Education Authority unanimously recognised that he had most exceptional ability, and were therefore willing to expend a very large sum of money if necessary. I hope that other authorities will show themselves at least as far-seeing as we were on that occasion.
With regard to the activities of that doubtless well-meaning, but, I am afraid
I must say, often-ill-doing body, the Educational Endowments Commission, we are very glad to learn, from a hint given by the Secretary of State to-day in reply to a question, that the Commission's wings are to be clipped somewhat in future. I think most people will agree that it would be a pity if the Commission came to an end at the present time, with its work unfinished, but I am sure that the Scottish Office will have earned the gratitude of all those in Scotland who are deeply interested in education—and everyone knows that their number is very large—if it puts a stop to the Commission's playful habit of interfering grossly with bequests which have been left for certain purposes, and trampling roughshod upon the wishes of those who have left those bequests. One of the glories of Scottish education in the past has been the way in which persons of means, either during their lifetime or after their death, have made provision for boys and girls who possessed scant resources but great brains. The conditions were, of course, very varied. Sometimes they were territorial, sometimes professional, and sometimes they depended on the name of the beneficiary. If the right hon. Gentleman and the Under-Secretary would take steps to see that. as far as is humanly practicable, the intentions of the testator are faithfully observed, they will not merely earn the thanks of all those interested in education, but they will also cause to lie more quietly in their narrow beds those who in the past out of their resources did their best to ensure that no one possessing brains, whether of their own parish, their own trade, or their own clan, should suffer from lack of education for wart of financial resources.

8.46 p.m.

Mr. SKELTON: I entirely agree with what has been said on the subject raised by the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean), that of bursaries for meritorious young people whose circumstances are very poor, and I am very delighted to hear the examples that are given of the enlightened way in which the education authority of a county with which I have been intimately connected carries on its work. My right hon. Friend and I are considering the steps that can be taken. The matter is one within the actual purview of the local authorities, and I think
the valuable examples that have been given might be copied by other local authorities.

Mr. MACLEAN: Might I emphasise the suggestion I threw out previously that, if the Scottish Office were to draw the attention of local authorities to the powers they already possess under the Education Act of meeting a situation such as was contained in the cases that I quoted, that would at least give them no further excuse for going on in the way some of them are evidently doing.

Mr. SKELTON: That is one of the points that we are considering, but I find some difficulty in believing that the expert advisers of education authorities do not know that there is an Act of Parliament which has been their Magna Charta since 1918.

Mr. MACLEAN: I was informed that the Members of the Committee said they could do nothing under the law to give a grant, and, when I informed them that it is there in the Act, they told me they knew nothing about that.

Mr. SKELTON: I will remember the hon. Member's information on that point. Several different matters have been raised on the subject of the grant. The point of the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Leonard) has been pressed upon us more than once by the City of Glasgow. The point they make is this. Glasgow gets only 46.2 per cent. of its total education expenditure from the Government grant, whereas you find such favoured spots as Orkney getting 80.5 per cent. from the Government grant. Does not that show that Glasgow is being very hardly treated? But the way one must test the validity of that proposition is to ask how much the authorities have to spend from the rates and, if we find that Glasgow with its low percentage contribution from the State only has to pay an education rate of 33.9 pence in the £ whereas Orkney with its high grant none the less has to pay an education rate of 64d. in the £, one appreciates the situa tion more truly. Trying to look at the matter with complete importiality, it appears to me that on the whole the method of calculating the general grant works out with fair equity. It may show a very small percentage given by the State, but it also shows that districts, even with the high percentages that they
get from the State, still have to pay very high rates, and I do not think the position of Glasgow is fully appreciated merely by stating the figure of the percentage of grant expenditure.

Mr. LEONARD: Is it not the case that the rate has a very close relationship to valuation, and will not the hon. Gentleman agree that derating is a factor of considerable importance?

Mr. SKELTON: That may all be perfectly true, hut I am dealing with the situation as I find it. Whenever anyone finds that an argument based upon the rate does not suit him, he discards the rate and goes back to valuation. That is a familiar dialectical device. I am not criticising it, but I do not believe that changing the argument from rating to valuation really makes a very great deal of difference at the end of the day. I prefer to compare income with income rather than income with capital. I commend the figures that I have given. I could give many more to show that, although some other areas get a larger percentage, yet they have to bear a great burden, the truth of the matter being that the bare essentials of education are more burdensome to a community when the scholars are scattered and the schools have to be many and various. That, I think, is the reason why, even though reinforced by these large grants, the rates in the rural districts are so heavy.
I turn from the general question to the question of the special grant. I doubt whether many Members are conversant with the details, which are somewhat technical. The special grant was made a block grant in 1927, when certain factors of a formula were elaborated. I am well aware that in any block grant based upon a formula you have to reconsider and reassess periodically. It is only a question when the next revision period will come. I am unwilling to pledge myself as to the actual year in which we shall make that revision, because I want to see the financial situation stabilised. It should be at a time when we have not to expect any sudden extra expense, such, for instance, as would be involved if the remaining cuts were restored to the teachers. But, in principle, I do not differ from my hon. Friend or from his constituents in saying that there must be periodical
revision of the special grant. Whether there should be any periodical revision or any rearrangement of the formula of that system in relation to Glasgow, I do not pledge myself or make any promise, and therefore, that is all I will say here and now on the topic as a special topic. I do not pretend to be very much of a mathematician, and I always doubt my own mathematical results, but, as far as I can judge, after many years experience, I think that on the whole the method of allocating the 'Scottish education grant by the Scottish Education Department is one which, on the whole, works well.
This brings me to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Sir A. Baillie). It is true that he, and, it may be, the education authority of West Lothian are not satisfied with the method by which the education grant is distributed. If I may say so with all courtesy and respect, they are only an individual body, and the great majority of education authorities, I think I am right in saying, are satisfied with the method adopted—the formula of so much for teacher and so much for scholar. I think, as far as I can judge with the experience I have had, that on the whole a rough and ready and fair equity of distribution is achieved.

Sir A. BAILLIE: Would it not be applicable to say that the reason that the vast majority of county authorities are satisfied is because the vast majority have not responded to the appeal for economy and that only the two counties of Lanark and West Lothian are carrying the baby?

Mr. SKELTON: I should not like to limit the general agreement of education authorities with the method adopted to the years when economies were made by the Secretary of State. For long years there has been a general feeling that it has not been a bad method of distribution. Do not let any apparent temporary disadvantage to a particular local authority raise in their minds any doubt as to the general value of the method of Scottish educational finance as a whole, namely, the receipt by Scotland of a grant, with which my right lion. Friend and those associated with him in the Education Department have the power of dealing in a way far more unrestricted than the narrower bounds of the equivalent
English Acts. Elasticity in the matter of dealing with educational expenditure is of real importance, and while it is of great importance that the education authorities should generally be satisfied with the method, I should be very sorry to find one authority which at the moment may think that another method might give it a better result and that the whole method of Scottish educational finance is wrong.
I challenge—and I will not do more—the figure given by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow. My information is that the grant increase for that county this year is £1,400, and, in view of the fact that the school population is falling and that the secondary school teacher population is also falling, that they would have suffered a very heavy reduction if it had not been for the increased sum available consequent upon the decision of the Government to restore half the cuts. I am told that whereas West Lothian has actually received an increase of £1,400 this year, its educational circumstances for the year would have brought about a serious decrease.
I will complete what I have to say by adding that there is no foundation for the proposition, which, I think, I heard my hon. Friend utter, that the Government stand the whole cost of the restoration of cuts, either in England or in Scotland. As far as Scotland is concerned, the grant for local education authorities is not earmarked for the special purpose, and as far as England is concerned, I understand—and I state this with very great diffidence—that the restoration of cuts, as far as the secondary schools is concerned, falls as to one-half upon the local education authorities. I may be wrong about that—I think I am right—and I use it only as an example to show that my hon. Friend has no foundation for saying that at any time the Government have said that the whole of the money needed to restore the 50 per cent. of the cuts has to be found in the education grant. The Scottish education grant, as is well known, is conditioned to be 11/80ths of the sum to be expended in England. It is not conditioned by the salaries of the teachers in the schools at all. I think that I have dealt with the whole of the subjects raised in this short Debate, but I shall be very glad at any
time to discuss privately with my hon. Friend his views about Scottish education grants, as I know that it is a subject in which he takes very great interest.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

Third Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

9.2 p.m.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: I make no apologies to the House for switching off hon. Members from the Northern part of the Isle—Scotland—to England, especially as some of the problems I intend to raise are of common interest to the United Kingdom. I intend to deal particularly with one of the new developments of the Ministry of Health—town-planning. I do not apologise for doing so because of its extremely intimate relation to housing. Housing and town-planning ought to be regarded as one problem, and, if town-planning is neglected and not properly approached, then inevitably the full advantage of spending both public and private money on housing will be more or less neutralised. I am in the fortunate position of not being worried with the fear of having to refer to legislation for, on the whole, Acts of Parliament give us more or less all the powers we require. It is purely a matter of putting the existing law into operation. We have made great progress during the last 20 years not only in legislation, but in public opinion. The Burns Act usually referred to as the 1909 Act, containing our town-planning policy, the 1925 Act, and last, but not least, the 1932 Act, which the right hon. Gentleman may claim as his, are all on the Statute Book. They are comprehensive and cover not every possible problem, but a great part of the needs of the case.
We are not lacking in ideas. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that there has been great progress in public opinion, I will not say on the part of the general public but of those people who are specially qualified to study the question. I refer to the Royal Institute of British Architects, who have spent considerable sums in the training of younger unemployed men in making plans in anticipation of developments in and
around London. In London we have had that very remarkable committee, one of the best of its kind, the London Regional Planning Committee, to which I should like to pay a special compliment, because their work is mainly voluntary, arduous and extraordinarily good, as far as it goes. Now that we have had the Act on the Statute Book for something like 18 months I think the time for action has come. The longer we leave town planning, and the longer we neglect it the more difficult it is to take advantage of it. Every year is wasted. If we had only been able to carry out what might be described as the ideas of our first town planner in London, the London of to-day might have been a much better place.
Be that as it may, I want to be fair and to pay a tribute where it is due. A great deal of work has been done since 1919 under the various Acts of Parliament. The prospects are not so bad as to make us pessimistic. In Liverpool they have a complete town planning scheme, partly due to the initiative of a distingushed engineer, who is now engineer of the London County Council. When I was in Liverpool a little time ago I was taken to see how they were regulating development by forward planning. Nor can we overlook what has been done in the County of London. Already we have inside the county 18 town planning schemes, covering an area of something like 37½ square miles. That is all to the good. If I read the newspapers aright—I am no longer a member of that distinguished body—the London County Council are going to make a complete survey and a complete scheme of town planning inside their boundary. But, and this is the important point that I want the Minister to take note of—I believe the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me when I say that all the boundaries that you make for town planning are more or less artificial.
There is now no real division between the town and the country. The advent and development of the motor, especially the motor omnibus, has revolutionised the living area, the domiciliary area of the bulk of the population of the great towns and cities, whether Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow, London or elsewhere. Distance has ceased to be a serious factor in deciding where people who work in cities shall live. The speeding
up and development of motors will accentuate that factor. In London where the General omnibus stops the Green Line begins. Distance is eliminated, and this makes it impossible to say where local government organisation exists that any one local authority can really tackle in a satisfactory way the town planning required for the population living in and around any of our great cities, not only London but throughout the country. Obviously, owing to its size, the London problem is more acute than the problem of any other great centre.
I have referred to the Regional Planning Committee. The right hon. Gentleman is no doubt familiar with their report, and I should like to recommend it for pleasant holiday reading. It is a very remarkable book, not at all dull, well illustrated, and is not written in the official language usually associatd with a document of this kind. It shows that the Committee have realised the importance of the problem. The greater London area is accurately described as the London traffic area. First, there is the City of London, then the County of London, created in 1889, the Metropolitan Police area, which is something like 10 miles radius from Charing Cross, and then there is the great area used for traffic purposes and for regional town planning by the Regional- Town Planning Committee, covering seven counties—not too ambitious if this problem is to be properly tackled.
The problem in London has become accentuated by the extraordinary and almost miraculous development of its population. I have referred on a previous occasion to this question and I want to create a public consciousness' which, unfortunately, does not exist. London is growing almost like a miracle city, while the population is almost unconscious of what is going on. According to the census returns, the population of this area was eight and a-quarter millions at the previous census, but in 1931 it had grown to 9,145,000 and it is still growing at the same rate. There is no cessation in the expansion. According to the anticipations of the Census Commission the rate of increase of population has been increasing during the years following the census three years ago. What makes this problem so difficult is that of the increase of 920,000 persons fewer than 500,000 of
the increase is due to what is described as the natural increase, the ordinary growth of the population. The balance is made up by the migration of over 400,000 people. They are flowing into this big area, unorganised, unplanned largely, and there is no authority which is really big enough to apply its mind to the position except the Government, particularly the Ministry of Health, and in common fairness I might add the Minister of Transport and the Ministry of Labour.
More than half of this increase of population is outside the county. Inside the county the population is going down, although the housing problem is not growing less. People have been pushed out by the pressure of industries and of factories into this great unorganised greater London area, which we have seen growing up before our eyes, and which we have seen when we have driven by motor car or motor omnibus in and around London. In this area there are 135 local authorities. Some people may say that, with all these authorities and this enormous number of persons who are interested in the local government of this large area, we may sleep in our beds without worry and leave them to do the job. This is a case, I will not say of a multitude of councils leading to confusion, but a division of responsibility in the matter of town planning which makes it almost insoluble. Of course the traffic question is intimately connected with it. Here is this vast population moving about, going to their work by tube, train and omnibus, some people living in the centre and working outside, but many more people living outside and working inside. To add to the difficulty you have the amusement habit and the recreation habit very much developed and encouraged by fast motor traffic, which leads to congestion. The Regional Planning Committee has been conscious of it and has diagnosed the problem, but, being an advisory committee, it is not able to provide the remedy. Let me give one quotation from their report:
 If town and regional planning is to advance beyond the primitive stage of merely stereotyping present and local tendencies and regulating them in detail, if it is to correct harmful trends and secure an improved distribution and better types of development, quite evidently Greater London must be considered and planned for as one complete unit.
The right hon. Gentleman will agree with that, and the question is how can it be done? I do not think legislation is required, we have all the power necessary under existing Acts of Parliament. But some sort of action is necessary unless you are going to have many problems of the future which will be in some cases worse than the old problems. The report points out that the relatively small amount of land occupied by new buildings covers an enormous area over which rural amenities seem to be destroyed by what is called sporadic development. If you take a ride in a car on any of the arterial roads you will see the ribbon development, little patches of houses and then perhaps a factory, and then a little bit of country. Every year it is becoming more difficult to get into the country, and there is an enormous waste of land due to the lack of ordered planning. The figures are significant. The number of dwellings built within the area is 350,000 houses. With eight houses to the acre that would absorb roughly 43,000 acres, or 68 square miles, that is in 10 years. In the region of Greater London there are 118 square miles and it may be a surprise to some hon. Members to know that there are 50,000 square miles in Greater London which are still unoccupied, especially when you find a difficulty in reaching an open space or a wood. The trouble is owing to the lack of planning, due to the number of authorities and the consequent division of responsibility.
If anyone goes down the Great West Road they will pass the Slough development, where they will see a great industrial community rising rapidly, covering all kinds of industries, but with a complete absence of any organised or planned housing provisions. If, on the other hand, they go east to Becontree they will see a great area of houses put up three years ago by the London County Council, with no industries, no factories, and no workshops for the vast new population which was dumped down in that area. Fortunately, by accident not by anticipation, the Ford Company saved the situation by placing a factory in that locality. I would impress on the right hon. Gentleman the importance of getting into contact with the Minister of Labour so that when factories are brought into these areas from the north they shall be directed to areas where there is proper
provision of houses and the possibility of factory development in a convenient neighbourhood. The ideal development is that of Port Sunlight. It is quite possible and practicable, indeed, it is vital that what has been done at Port Sunlight should be done in all our great towns, and particularly in London under the powers already given in the Town Planning Acts.
The first thing to be done is to have a green girdle round London, to stop the further urban development of London unless there is reasonable provision for parks, gardens and open spaces. This Greater London of ours has grown large enough. There is nothing imaginary or visionary about such a proposal, as it has already been considered by the Town Planning Committee and the London County Council. It is also applied in almost every great German city, in America and in the Dominions, and it is only because of our old-fashioned ideas that we have not done something of the same kind of thing. Obviously, if town planning is to make any progress it is impossible to leave it to the chance action of the 135 authorities concerned. There must be joint action. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman how many of these heal authorities are co-operating? Have the powers provided by Section 35 of the Act been exercised? I have a shrewd suspicion that not many of them are cooperating. None of them want to take the initiative, they have their own little difficulties and problems, and unless there is some driving force, someone to initiate a policy, very little will be done. I am going to ask the right hon. Gentleman to give a lead to these local authorities, to get them together and encourage and stimulate their co-operation, so that we may have town planning not next year or the year after, but in the year 1934.
One other matter: a very interesting provision is made on the recommendation of the right hon. Gentleman in the Town Planning Act giving permission for satellite towns. The report, quite rightly in my opinion, recommends strongly that this is the right kind of development if you are to stop your development from urbanising too much agricultural land. The promoters of the Town Planning A ct—I suppose the right hon. Gentleman and his officials—in Section 35 made special and skilful arrangements to secure that where any locality or two or
three local authorities joined together, the Minister had power to acquire land on behalf of any authority desiring to take such action. I speak subject to correction, but I do not believe there is a single case yet, except around Manchester, of any serious attempt to use these powers. Withenshaw is the only example, but I believe that is the best way to preserve rural amenities and give that varied town life which we desire to see. You do not want a segregation of one class entirely to itself. The more mixing of population there is the better for everybody concerned, and I take it the desire is that you should have enough variety of life, creating a unified society and leading to proper provision for employment as well as social amenities and recreation.
Finally, the case comes in again under Section 36, which gives the Minister great powers. The Minister may decide, after a local inquiry, that a scheme ought to be prepared, and he has the power to prepare a scheme and may require the Authority to institute it. I am not complaining that after 18 months he has done nothing in that direction, but I would remind him of the fact that he has the power, and it is a great lever to stimulate activity in recalcitrant local authorities, especially when you come to Greater London. I would not press him to take isolated action in relation to this or that authority, if he is to use his powers towards the co-operation of these various Authorities in this great area to prevent that tragic development going on all around our great cities, and particularly in London. I do not apologise for raising this subject. I believe it is the first time we have discussed it on the Ministry of Health Vote. It is intimately associated with industry, intimately associated with health, recreation and the well-being of our industrial population. I hope, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman will take the opportunity of giving it his sympathetic consideration.

9.28 p.m.

Mr. McGOVERN: If I am in order 1 would like to extract from the Minister some information concerning National Health Insurance. In connection with the last Bill that was put through this House reducing the benefits and taking Away the services of the doctor from the unemployed, the maternity benefit, and taking away certain pension rights, statements
were made by Members of the Government that the consultative committee dealing with National Health questions had agreed to all the provisions of that Bill. Since then there have been contradictions made in connection with people who are on that body. In this House, when the previous Bill was under discussion And we were seeking some relief, I made a speech in which I stated that members of the consultative committee on the trades union side had agreed to these reductions that had taken place, and I did so on the Authority of the Ministers who had spoken in this House on 7th July, 1933. On that date the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, speaking in Committee of Supply, said:
 The hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Wallhead) asked whether the approval of the approved societies had been obtained. The Committee will remember that this step was taken on the advice of the consultative committee, or in co-operation with them. It was approved by all the six members of approved societies, including the trade union group, and I know of no approved society which did not agree—recognising, if you like, the grim necessity of passing that Act."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th July, 1933; col, 722, Vol. 280.]
On 13th June, 1932, the late Parliamentary Secretary, now the Minister of Mines, said:
The hon, Member for Crorbals (Mr. Buchanan) asked about the position of the consultative committee. It is a body of 40 members representing approved societies of every type. Six of them are representatives of trade union approved societies. The hon. Member asked me whether they approved of the Measure. The answer is 'Yes.' He asked me if they approved of this particular proposal. The answer again is ' Yes.' 
A little later the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) said:
 The Parliamentary Secretary said that the consultative committee is behind this Measure. Do I understand that it is unanimous in supporting this first Clause?
Mr. BROWN: The consultative committee has given its approval to the Measure and to this Sub-section.
Mr. BUCFIANAN Including the six trade unions?
Mr. BROWN: Certainly."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th June, 1932; Vol. 267.]
We have been told since that these statements are untrue. The statements of the Minister are completely denied and others have gone further and said that the trade union approved
societies have protested and that an apology has been given to them for these statements having been made. I do not seek to exploit anything that is untrue. If the Ministers have made statements that are untrue, I ask that they should be withdrawn and apologised for, and I am prepared in that case to apologise and to withdraw. I am not anxious to have private letters sent to me that I cannot cite denying these statements of the Minister and I think we are entitled, in the interest of the working class, to ask the Minister to say whether an apology has been tendered to the trade union societies or, if not, whether the trade union groups agreed to the provisions of the Measure as stated by the Minister at that time.

9.35 p.m.

Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE: I do not want to stand between the Committee and the reply of the Minister to the very interesting statement by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) or his reply to the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern), but I want to appeal for a clarification and certainly an assurance on the subject of town planning. I am afraid that the difficulties of town planning are so great that, having laid down the foundation and the scheme of machinery and organisation, the tendency is for the matter to get more and more into a groove and to be side-tracked. It is a good thing when we have occasionally an opportunity such as this to ask the Minister whether he is doing all he can to impress on local authorities the seriousness of the position.
It is a common experience of all If us throughout the country, whether we go by road or by rail, to see the enormous growth of housing. These houses are growing up generally in a way that is a disgrace to the present age. There is no question about it that, taking it by and large, the degree of thought that is given to the planning and the actual usefulness of the location and distribution of housing, is a disgrace to our intelligence. Yet it is not so much our intelligence, as the actual difficulties of the position. This housing is going on at a great pace, and Ike pace will be increased especially in those areas that want planning more than anything else, that is in the case of slum clearance and overcrowding. Town planning requires to come first and the
housing afterwards. That is a, point that some of us have stressed in the past. I remember emphasising it when the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Green. wood) introduced his Slum Clearance Bill. I said then that planning should come first and housing afterwards. Instead of that the right hon. Gentleman introduced his Slum Clearance Bill as the one which had the most popularity, and left it to his successors to bring in the Town Planning Bill. The two things go together, but you want the planning first and the housing then to fit into the plan.
Why is this planning sticking? It is sticking unnecessarily. In planning there is very great difficulty in visualising the future. Fortunately or unfortunately I have had recently to consider this matter from the point of view of planning my own family estate, for which I am the trustee for life. I am responsible for seeing that it is done in the best way possible. The estate falls within two rural districts. I have called in one if the best known planners, who has taken a considerable part for years in looking at things from the public point of view. I called him in to consult with him, to protect my interests from the private point of view. The difficulty is this, and it is a real one in planning. A planner comes clown and the local authority wants to plan an area for the future—a future which is almost completely unknown. The planner does not know what the future development of the area will be. He flows there will be an arterial road somewhere in the offing, and he imagines there may be a town or a village here and there. He feels it essential to get an agreement to develop a certain part of the area, with four or two or eight houses to the acre. But he is acting in the blue.
My expert and I, talking honestly and straightly as man to man, said: "This is ridiculous. We really do not know what we are planning for, and yet we are tying up the estate for all eternity to what is unknown." What is really wanted is that where you have a development coming close by and you know what the future is going to be, you should plan for it in detail. I believe that a large amount of planning is sticking now for the very reason that, consciously or unconsciously, the authorities in general feel that the landowners are right in saying, "This is nonsense. You are asking us to restrict the development of our estates,
which may possibly be the centre of some close urban development, and you are asking us for ever to restrict it to a development of four, two or one houses per acre as if it were to be only suburban development."
I ask the Minister whether there is not now an opportunity for him, when he issues a circular 'on planning to local authorities, to advise them that it is in their power now to plan only superficially and provisionally for the most part where areas are still purely rural, and to leave it open for a supplementary scheme to be introduced at a later date. I cannot go into details. I believe it is passible to work the Town Planning Act in that spirit, putting emphasis on the fact that you must lay down your plan in advance for the main development, and for the minor development to be left over for the time being. It is essential to plan for the immense movement of population. About 100,000 persons are being moved out of London every year. They are settling down in different areas around London. As far as possible we want to associate that movement with the resiting of factories. This point was mentioned by the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris).
From a national point of view we do not want to encourage factories to move down from the North. I believe that the movement of factories must be allowed largely to decide itself, and the placing of houses ought to follow the placing of factories. You cannot deliberately place factories in one direction or another. Factories will find themselves where it is most useful to go. The planning of housing and the other requirements of civilisation ought to be around the factory. The factory should be the nucleus. I think we have made a mistake in trying to see where residences should go and letting factories take their own line. You cannot properly envisage any arrangement for factories except as dependent on two main things, communication and labour supply. Factories find that out for themselves. Along the Great West Road or the Great North Road or the railways, wherever the factories are finding a place, the houses should be arranged around.
The chief person who will preserve rural amenities is the private landowner. The landowner who is doing his best for
the public as well as for his employés is the best preserver of the amenities of the countryside. Many of our difficulties to day arise from the series of legislative measures which have put him into the category of a selfish profiteer and have made it almost impossible for him to keep up his estate, though I am glad that things are improving in that respect. I hope that in the planning of the countryside in the future something will be done to bring him more and more into the picture, as a co-operator if not actually the central figure in the work. I hope also that our planning in the future will be freed from those causes of friction and misunderstanding which exist at present and a greater impetus and encouragement will be given to a movement which is so valuable.

9.47 p.m.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): Certainly no use of a two hours Debate at the end of a Parliamentary day could be more welcome to a Minister of Health than the use to which the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) has enabled the House to devote the time now available, namely, the consideration of the question of planning. One sees more and more clearly as the years pass that this is the central point to which our attention ought to be directed in the interests of the cause of good government. I sometimes think that the path of good government in these days is a path towards planning and that in order to relate our civilisation to the heavy strains which are put upon it in modern times, what we require is more powerful machinery to secure good planning ahead. For that reason I particularly welcome the publicity given to this subject to-night by my hon. Friend. It is particularly important at the present when owing to the policy of the Government we are advancing, at a rate unexampled in the past, with the building and rebuilding of the housing accommodation of the country, and when our towns owing to the development of modern transport are spreading so rapidly through the countryside. These conditions create a special requirement for greater foresight and greater attention to our planning activities.
During recent months in the course of reorganising the housing work at the
Ministry of Health, the housing work and the planning work of the Ministry have been brought together into a single department instead of being separated as formerly. We have done that because we recognise that all housing work and all development must be carried out by co-ordination and deliberate planning. If the many tasks which lie before us in connection with the further development of housing are to be accomplished economically and with the best use of our national assets the work must be closely related to the work of planning. The hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle) produced the impression, perhaps unintentionally, that town planning was sticking. That the rate of progress both of the organisation of the work and its actual achievement is not all we would desire, I cordially agree. I agree that we ought not to be satisfied with the amount of planning work which is being done, until it is much more adequate to the needs of the country than it is at present. But the House ought not to receive the impression that no advance is being made.
This is a new idea. The country has only taken to planning in the last generation. What we are watching is the infancy of an idea which we hope will grow to be a giant. It is a promising infancy and I have for the information of the House ascertained some figures of recent progress which are of interest. Ten years ago the number of authorities engaged in the active preparation of schemes was 218 and the number of authorities promoting schemes at the present time is 803. A more effective figure perhaps to show the progress of town planning work is the figure of the number of acres covered by planning schemes. In the course of ten years this has increased from 1,200,000 acres to 12,000,000 acres. That shows that the country is taking to planning and we have in these figures an encouragement to redouble our efforts to induce the country to take to planning more and more as an essential feature of good government. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green put his finger upon a point calling for special attention, as regards the organisation of planning work in order to increase its efficiency. That is the rationalisation and widening of the executive areas over which planning can be administered.
Generally speaking, at present the usual area of administration for planning schemes is the county district, the county borough or the borough. It is obvious that in many cases and for many planning purposes 14 ider areas are required to make the planning as effective as possible. It is for that reason that the Government policy and my own policy at the Ministry of Health has always been directed towards the promotion of regional planning committees wherever they are required and can be obtained. On the question of co-operation between local authorities I would say that so long as we have a system of local government with autonomous local bodies, and long may we continue to have that system, so long will both wisdom and progress be obtained by promoting reasonable co-operation between these authorities and not by arbitrarily overriding them. There, I know, the hon. Member and, I think, a very large majority of the Members of the House will cordially agree. Substantial success has in fact been obtained in the promotion of regional planning by these methods. Let me again take that ten years period to see what has been done. In those ten years we have increased the number of executive committees, the cornmittees that actually control the work, from one to 75. I think that is an encouraging figure for the future.
The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green dealt with the absorbing question of planning in London, and let me say, in the very short space of time that I have left to deal with so enormous a question, that planning in London is at present rather better co-ordinated than in almost any other part of the country. They have the widely extended authority of the London County Council for one thing, but undoubtedly that leads to the grave problem of co-ordinating the plans of the London County Council with the plans of the authorities of Greater London outside the County Council area, and that is a problem of which there is no final solution at present in view. The Greater London Regional Planning Committee to which he referred, is a body of invaluable use for planning the greatest city in the world upon lines which are adequate, but I would summarise the position in this way, that the problem with which the hon. Member dealt is really one of the rationalisation of London as a whole. I think we have
probably the most practical and efficient arrangement that we can get for the planning of London as long as London government is on the present lines. But if he asks me here and now whether there is not a problem awaiting us for the future as to the rationalisation of London government as a whole, in order, among other things, that the planning of London may be dealt with on a more reasonable basis, I answer, "Most certainly there is." One of the most difficult, most important, and most vital problems for the welfare of the great Metropolis that awaits us, as soon as it is ripe, is that of the rationalisation of the bigger area which is now London, because London is always exceeding our arrangements for its administration. We have before us the remains of the London of the past, the City and the county council and both are already obsolete, and now we have awaiting some treatment in the future the Greater London which needs dealing with as a whole. It is impossible for me to deal further with this vast problem in the one moment that remains to me.
Let me answer the question addressed to me by the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern). There is no question or necessity here for denial or apology or explanation. The situation is perfectly well understood. The proposals to which the hon. Member referred as regards the Bill of 1932 were approved by the Consultative Council as a whole, and the Consultative Council does include members nominated by the Trade Unions' Association. Let me be perfectly fair. The Trade Unions' Associations have since made clear to me the grounds of their criticism of the proposals. Nevertheless, the statements made as regards the approval of the proposals by the council were perfectly accurate.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution," put, and agreed to.

It being Ten of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14, to put forthwith the Questions, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of Classes I to IX of the Civil Estimates, and of the Navy Estimates, the Army Estimates, the Air Estimates and the Revenue Departments Estimates.

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1934.

CLASS I

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class I. of the Civil Estimates,

put, and agreed to.

CLASS II.

Question put,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class II. of the Civil Estimates.

The House divided: Ayes, 322; Noes, 56.

Division No. 353.]
AYES.
[10.0 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)


Albery, Irving James
Cross, R. H.
Hornby, Frank


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Crossley, A. C.
Horsbrugh, Florence


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Howard, Tom Forrest


Alien, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Howltt, Dr. Alfred B.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Hume, Sir George Hopwood


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)


Apsley, Lord
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Dickle, John P.
Hunter-Wetson, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Bafflle, Sir Adrian W. M.
Dixey, Arthur C. N.
Iveagh, Countess of


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Duckworth, George A. V.
Jamieson, Douglas


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Duggan, Hubert John
Jesson, Major Thomas E.


Bateman, A. L.
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Eales, John Frederick
Johnston, J. W. (clackmannan)


Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Edge, Sir William
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Edmondson, Major Sir James
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Blindell, James
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Law. Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)


Bossom, A. C.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Leckie, J. A.


Boulton, W. W.
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Fermoy, Lord
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.


Bracken, Brendan
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Levy, Thomas


Braithwaite, Maj, A. N. (Yorks. E. R.)
Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Lewis, Oswald


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Liddell, Walter S.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Fox, Sir Gifford
Lindsay, Noel Ker


Broadbent, Colonel John
Fraser, Captain Sir Ian
Liewellin, Major John J.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G.(Wd. Gr'n)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)


Browne, Captain A. C.
Ganzonl, Sir John
Loder, Captain J. de Vera


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Loftus, Pierce C.


Burghley, Lord
Gledhill, Gilbert
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.


Burnett, John George
Glossop, C. W. H.
Lyons, Abraham Montagu


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Mebane, William


Butt, Sir Alfred
Goff, Sir Park
MacAndrew, Lt.-Col C. G. (Partick)


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Goldle, Noel B.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Caine, G. R. Hall-
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
McConnell, Sir Joseph


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Gower, Sir Robert
MeCorguodale, M. S.


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetiaw)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Castlereagh, Viscount
Graves, Marjorle
McKie, John Hamilton


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Greene, William P. C.
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Macmillan, Maurice Harold


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Grimston, R. V.
Magnay, Thomas


Choriton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Maitland, Adam


Clarry, Reginald George
Guest, Capt. Rt. Han F. E.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A, D.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Martin, Thomas B.


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Hales, Harold K.
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Colman, N. C. D.
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
Mayhew. Lieut.-Colonel John


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Meller, Sir Richard James


Conant, R. J. E.
Hanbury, Cecil
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chlsw'k)


Cook, Thomas A.
Hanley, Dennis A.
Mitcheson, G. G.


Cooke, Douglas
Harbord, Arthur
Moison, A. Hugh Elsdale


Cooper, A. Duff
Hartland, George A.
Mansell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Copeland, Ida
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenn'gt'n)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Moreing, Adrian C.


Cranborne, Viscount
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Morgan, Robert H.


Craven-Ellis, William
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Morris, John Patrick (Salford. N.)


Crooke, J. Smedley
Hepworth, Joseph
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Moss, Captain H. J.


Munro, Patrick
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Summersby, Charles H.


Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Salmon, Sir Isidore
Sutcliffe, Harold


North, Edward T.
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Templeton, William P.


Nunn, William
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


O'Connor, Terence James
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Thompson, Sir Luke


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Scone, Lord
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Orr Ewing, I. L.
Selley, Harry R.
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Palmer, Francis Noel
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Patrick, Colin M.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Pearson, William G.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Peat, Charles U.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Penny, Sir George
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Perkins, Walter R. D.
Skelton, Archibald Noel
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Petherick, M.
Slater, John
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Power, Sir John Cecil
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Pybus, Sir John
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine,C.)
Wells, Sydney Richard


Radford, E. A.
Smithers, Sir Waldron
Weymouth, Viscount


Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Somerset, Thomas
Whiteside, Sorrell Noel H.


Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Somervell, Sir Donald
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothlan)
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Ray, Sir William
Soper, Richard
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-
Southby, Commander Archibald R, J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Remer, John R.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Wise, Alfred R.


Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Weimer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Robinson, John Roland
Spens, William Patrick
Womersley, Sir Walter


Ropner, Colonel L.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Ross, Ronald D.
Stevenson, James
Wragg, Herbert


Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)


Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)



Runge, Norah Cecil
Stones, James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Strauss, Edward A.
Captain Austin Hudson and Major George Davies.


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Strickland, Captain W. F.



Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton.



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W, Riding)
Heaton, James.


Banfield, John William
Groves, Thomas E.
Milner, Major James


Betsy, Joseph
Grundy, Thomas W.
Nathan, Major H. L.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Owen, Major Goronwy


Cape, Thomas
Hamilton, Sir R.W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Paling, Wilfred


Cooks, Frederick Seymour
Harris, Sir Percy
Parkinson, John Allen


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jenkins, Sir William
Rea, Walter Russell


Daggar, George
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sailer, Dr. Alfred


Dabble, William
Kirkwood, David
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Edwards, Charles
Lawson, John James
Thorne, William James


Evans, David Owen (Cardlgan)
Leonard, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Liewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Lunn, William
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Wilmot, John


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
McGovern, John



George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Mainwaring, William Henry
Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. D. Graham.


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Malialieu, Edward Lancelot

CLASS III.

Question put,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution

reported in respect of Class of the Civil Estimates."

The House divided: Ayes, 350; Noes, 45.

Division No. 354.]
AYES.
[10.12 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Astor, Viscountees (Plymouth, Sutton)
Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Ballile, Sir Adrian W. M.
Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)


Albery, Irving James
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Blinded, James


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'1, W.)
Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Bossom, A. C.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Bouiton, W. W.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Bower, Commander Robert Tatton


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Bateman, A. L.
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Bracken, Brendan


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Beaumont, Hn. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)


Apsley, Lord
Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)


Asks, Sir Robert William
Bean, Sir Arthur Shirley
Brass, Captain Sir William


Broadbent, Colonel John
Glossop, C. W. H.
McCorquodale, M. S.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Goff, Sir Park
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Goldie, Noel B.
McKie, John Hamiltor


Browne, Captain A. C.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Gower, Sir Robert
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Burghley, Lord
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rid. N.)
Macmillan, Maurice Harold


Burnett, John George
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Magnay, Thomas


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Graves, Marjorie
Maitland, Adam


Butt, Sir Alfred
Greene, William P. C.
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Grentell, E. C. (City of London)
Malialleu, Edward Lancelot


Caine, G. R. Hall-
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro',W.)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Grimston, R. V.
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Grltten, W. G. Howard
Martin, Thomas B.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Gunston, Captain C. W.
Meller, Sir Richard James


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chlew'k)


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Mitcheson, G. G.


Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)
Hales, Harold K.
Moison, A. Hugh Elsdale


Choriton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Clarry, Reginald George
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Ztl'nd)
Moreing, Adrian C.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hanbury, Cecil
Morgan, Robert H.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hanley, Dennis A.
Morrie, John Patrick (Salford, N.)


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Harbord, Arthur
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)


Colman, N. C. D.
Harris, Sir Percy
Moss, Captain H. J.


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Hartland, George A.
Munro, Patrick


Conant, R. J. E.
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald


Cook, Thomas A.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Cooke, Douglas
Hangers, Captain F. F. A.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Cooper, A. Duff
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsf'd)
North, Edward T.


Copeland, Ida
Hepworth, Joseph
Nunn, William


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
O'Connor, Terence James


Cranborne, Viscount
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Craven-Erls, William
Holdsworth, Herbert
Orr Ewing, I. L.


Crooke, J. Smedley
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Palmer, Francis Noel


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Patrick, Colin M


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gaineb'ro)
Hornby, Frank
Pearson, William G.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Peat, Charles U.


Cross, R. H.
Howard, Tom Forrest
Penny, Sir George


Crossley, A. C.
Hewitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Petherick, M.


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Power, Sir John Cecil


Dalkeith, Earl of
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Pybus, Sir John


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Radford, E. A.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Dickie, John P.
Iveagh, Countess of
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Dixey, Arthur C. N.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Ramsbotham, Herwald


Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.
Jamieson, Douglas
Ray, Sir William


Duckworth, George A. V.
Janner, Barnett
Rea, Waiter Russell


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Duggan, Hubert John
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-


Duncan, James A.L.(Kensington, N.)
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Eales, John Frederick
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Ramer, John R.


Eastwood, John Francis
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Edge, Sir William
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Edmondson, Major Sir James
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Robinson, John Roland


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Leckie, J. A.
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Ross, Ronald D.


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Levy, Thomas
Runge, Norah Cecil


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Lewis, Oswald
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Liddall, Waiter S.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Fermoy, Lord
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffleid, B'tside)


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Llewellin, Major John J.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Locker-Lampson, Rt.Hn. G.(Wd. Gr'n)
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Fox, Sir Gifford
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Fraser, Captain Sir Ian
Loftus, Pierce C.
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Scone, Lord


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Selley, Harry R.


Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Mebane, William
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Ganzonl, Sir John
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
MacAndrew, Capt. J. 0. (Ayr)
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Gledhill, Gilbert
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Sheppereon, Sir Ernest W.




Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Stones, James
Wells, Sydney Richard


Skelton, Archibald Noel
Strauss, Edward A.
Weymouth, Viscount


Slater, John
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine,C.)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Smithers, Sir Waldron
Summersby, Charles H.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Somerset, Thomas
Sutcliffe, Harold
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Somervell, Sir Donald
Templeton, William P.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Thompson, Sir Luke
Wise, Alfred R.


Soper, Richard
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Thorp, Linton Theodore
Womersley, Sir Walter


Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Todd. A. L. S. (Kingswinford)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banft)


Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Spens, William Patrick
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Wragg, Herbert


Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'moriand)
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)



Stevenson, James
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Stewart, J. H. (Flfe, E.)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Commander Southby and Dr. Morris-Jones.


Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Maxton, James


Attlee, Clement Richard
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Milner, Major James


Bonfield, John William
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Nathan, Major H. L.


Matey, Joseph
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks,W. Riding)
Owen, Major Goronwy


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Paling, Wilfred


Buchanan, George
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Parkinson, John Allen


Cape, Thomas
Jenkins, Sir William
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Kirkwood, David
Thorne, William James


Dagger, George
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Leonard, William
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Dobble, William
Lunn, William
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Edwards, Charles
McEntee, Valentine L.
Wilmot, John


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
McGovern, John



George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Angiesea)
Mainwaring, William Henry
Mr. Groves and Mr. G. Macdonald.

CLASS IV.

Question put,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions

reported in respect of Class IV. of the Civil Estimates."

The House divided: Ayes, 333; Noes, 63.

Division No. 355.]
AYES.
[10.24 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Broadbent, Colonel John
Copeland. Ida


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Courtauld, Major John Sewell


Albery, Irving James
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Cranborne, Viscount


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks., Newb'Y)
Craven-Ellis, William


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Browne, Captain A. C.
Crooke, J. Smedley


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Crookshank, Cot. C. de Windt (Bootle)


Alien, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Burghley, Lord
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Burnett, John George
Cream-Johnson, R. P.


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Cross, R. H.


Ansley, Lord
Butt, Sir Alfred
Crossley, A. C.


Asks, Sir Robert William
Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Caine, G. R. Hall-
Culverwell, Cyril Tom


Ballile, Sir Adrian W. M.
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Dalkeith, Earl of


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Carver, Major William H.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Castlereagh, Viscount
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Bateman, A. L.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Dickle, John P.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Dixey, Arthur C. N.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B.(Portsm'th,C.)
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)
Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Choriton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Duckworth, George A. V.


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Clarry, Reginald George
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Clayton, Sir Christopher
Duggan, Hubert John


Blindell, James
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)


Bossom, A. C.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Eales, John Frederick


Bouiton, W. W.
Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Eastwood, John Francis


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Colman, N. C. D.
Edge, Sir William


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Edmondson, Major Sir James


Bracken, Brendan
Conant, R. J. E.
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E.R.)
Cook, Thomas A.
Eillston, Captain George Sampson


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Cooke, Douglas
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Cooper, A. Duff
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Levy, Thomas
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaidy)


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Lewis, Oswald
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Liddell, Walter S.
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Fermoy, Lord
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Fleiden, Edward Brocklehurst
Llewellin, Major John J.
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. G'n)
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Fox, Sir Gifford
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Fraser, Captain Sir Ian
Loder, Captain J. de Vera
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Loftus, Pierce C.
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Scone, Lord


Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Selley, Harry R.


Ganzonl, Sir John
Mabane, William
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Gledhill, Gilbert
MacAndrew, Capt. J. 0. (Ayr)
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Glossop, C. W. H.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Goff, Sir Park
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Goidle, Noel B.
McKie, John Hamilton
Slater, John


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Gower, Sir Robert
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)


Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'ri'd. N.)
Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine,C.)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Magnay, Thomas
Smithers, Sir Waldron


Graves, Marjorie
Maitland, Adam
Somerset, Thomas


Greene, William P. C.
Making, Brigadier-General Ernest
Somervell, Sir Donald


Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Grattan, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Grimston, R. V.
Martin, Thomas B.
Soper, Richard


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Meller, Sir Richard James
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chlew'k)
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Mitcheson, G. G.
Spans, William Patrick


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Hales, Harold K.
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'moriand)


Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Stevenson, James


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Moreing, Adrian C.
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


Hanbury, Cecil
Morgan, Robert H.
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)


Hanley, Dennis A.
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Stones, James


Harbord, Arthur
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Strauss, Edward A.


Hartland, George A.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Moss, Captain H. J.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Munro, Patrick
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Summersby, Charles H.


Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
North, Edward T.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Hepworth, Joseph
Nunn, William
Templeton, William P.


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
O'Connor, Terence James
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Thompson, Sir Luke


Holdsworth, Herbert
Orr Ewing, I. L.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Hope, Capt. Hon. A. 0. J. (Aston)
Palmer, Francis Noel
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Pearson, William G.
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Hors-Bellsha, Leslie
Peat, Charles U.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Hornby, Frank
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Horsbrugh, Florence
Petherick, M.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Howard, Tom Forrest
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Howltt, Dr. Alfred B.
Power, Sir John Cecil
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Pyhus, Sir John
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Radford, E. A.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Weymouth, Viscount


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Iveagh, Countess of
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Jamieson, Douglas
Ray, Sir William
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Reid, Capt. A, Cunningham-
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Wise, Alfred R.


Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecciesall)
Womersley, Sir Walter


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Robinson, John Roland
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Ropner, Colonel L.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Wragg, Herbert


Leckie, J. A.
Ross, Ronald D.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)



Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Runge, Norah Cecil
Sir George Penny and Commander Southby.


NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Betsy, Joseph
Cape, Thomas


Attlee, Clement Richard
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Cocks, Frederick Seymour


Banned, John William
Buchanan, George
Cripps, Sir Statford




Daggar, George
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Maxton, James


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Harris, Sir Percy
Milner, Major James


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Janner, Barnett
Nathan, Major H. L.


Dobbie, William
Jenkins, Sir William
Owen, Major Goronwy


Edwards, Charles
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Paling, Wilfred


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Parkinson, John Allen


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Rea, Walter Russell


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Kirkwood, David
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Lawson, John James
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Leonard, William
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Thorne, William James


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lunn, William
Tinker, John Joseph


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
McEntee, Valentine L.
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McGovern, John
Wilmot, John


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Mainwaring, William Henry



Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Malialleu, Edward Lancelot
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grundy, Thomas W.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Mr. Groves and Mr. D. Graham.

CLASS V.

Question put,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions

reported in respect of Class V. of the Civil Estimates."

The House divided: Ayes, 336; Noes, 60.

Division No. 356.]
AYES.
[10.36 p.m.


Acland-Troyte. Lieut.-Colonel
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Clarry, Reginald George
Ganzoni, Sir John


Albery, Irving James
Clayton, Sir Christopher
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Gledhill, Gilbert


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Glossop, C. W. H.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Gluckstein, Louis Halle


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Colman, N. C. D.
Goff, Sir Park


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Goldie, Noel B.


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Conant, R. J. E.
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.


Apsley, Lord
Cook, Thomas A.
Gower, Sir Robert


Asks, Sir Robert William
Cooke, Douglas
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Cooper, A. Duff
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas


Ballile, Sir Adrian W. M.
Copeland, Ida
Graves, Marjorie


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Greene, William P. C.


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Cranborne, Viscount
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Craven-Ellis, William
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Crooke, J. Smedley
Grimston, R. V.


Bateman, A. L.
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Cross, R. H.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Bonn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Crossley, A. C.
Guy, J. C. Morrison


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Hales, Harold K.


Blindell, James
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)


Bossom, A. C.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)


Boulton, W. W.
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Hanbury, Cecil


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hanley, Dennis A.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Bracken, Brendan
Dickle, John P.
Harbord, Arthur


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Dixey, Arthur C. N.
Hartland, George A.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenn'gt'n)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Duckworth, George A. V.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Duggan, Hubert John
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Duncan, Jamas A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Hepworth, Joseph


Browne, Captain A. C.
Eales, John Frederick
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Eastwood, John Francis
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Burghley, Lord
Edge, Sir William
Holdsworth, Herbert


Burnett, John George
Edmondson, Major Sir James
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Hornby, Frank


Caine, G. R. Hall
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Horsbrugh, Florence


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Howard, Tom Forrest


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Fermoy, Lord
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Carver, Major William H.
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)


Castlereagh, Viscount
Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Hume, Sir George Hopwood


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Fox, Sir Gifford
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Fraser, Captain Sir Ian
Hunter-Weston, Lt-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.


Chapman, Cot. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Iveagh, Countess of


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
O'Connor, Terence James
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)


James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Smithers, Sir Waldron


Jamieson, Douglas
Orr Ewing, I. L.
Somerset, Thomas


Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Palmer, Francis Noel
Somervell, Sir Donald


Joel, Dudley J. Baranto
Patrick, Colin M.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Johnstor, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Pearson, William G.
Soper, Richard


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Peat, Charles U.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Penny, Sir George
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Kerr, Hamilton W.
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Petherick, M.
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Spens, William Patrick


Leckie, J. A.
Power, Sir John Cecil
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Stevenson, James


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Pybus, Sir John
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


Levy, Thomas
Radford, E. A.
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)


Lewis, Oswald
Ratites, Henry V. A. M.
Stones, James


Liddall, Walter S.
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Storey, Samuel


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Strauss, Edward A.


Llewellin, Major John J.
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd.Gr'n)
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Rathbone, Eleanor
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Ray, Sir William
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Loftus, Pierce C.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Summersby, Charles H.


Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-
Sutcliffe, Harold


Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Templeton, William P.


Mebane, William
Remer, John R.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Thompson, Sir Luke


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur II.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


McCorquodale, M. S.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Thorp, Linton Theodore


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Robinson, John Roland
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Ropner, Colonel L.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


McKie, John Hamilton
Ross, Ronald D.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Roes Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Macmillan, Maurice Harold
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Magnay, Thomas
Runge, Norah Cecil
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Maitland, Adam
Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Wells, Sydney Richard


Marsden, Commander Arthur
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Weymouth, Viscount


Martin, Thomas B.
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Salmon, Sir Isidore
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Meller, Sir Richard James
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Mitcheson, G. G.
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Scone, Lord
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Selley, Harry R.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Wise, Alfred R.


Morgan, Robert H.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Womersley, Sir Walter


Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Moss, Captain H. J.
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Wragg, Herbert


Munro, Patrick
Skelton, Archibald Noel
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Slater, John



Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


North, Edward T.
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)
Commander Southhy and Dr. Morris-Jones.


NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Attlee, Clement Richard
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Banfield, John William
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Maxton, James


Batey, Joseph
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Milner, Major James


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Nathan, Major H. L.


Buchanan, George
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Owen, Major Goronwy


Cape, Thomas
Harris, Sir Percy
Paling, Wilfred


Locks, Frederick Seymour
Janner, Barnett
Parkinson, John Allen


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jenkins, Sir William
Rea, Walter Russell


Dagger, George
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Dobbie, William
Kirkwood, David
Thorne, William James


Edwards, Charles
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Leonard, William
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Lunn, William
Wilmot, John


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
McGovern, John



Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Mainwaring, William Henry
Mr. Groves and Mr. G. Macdonald.

CLASS VI.

Question put,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions

reported in respect of Class VI. of the Civil Estimates."

The House divided: Ayes, 335; Noes, 62.

Division No. 357.]
AYES.
[10.48 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cross, R. H.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Crossley, A. C.
Hornby, Frank


Albery, Irving James
Cruddae, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Horsbrugh, Florence


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Howard, Tom Forrest


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Daikeith, Earl of
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hume, Sir George Hopwood


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Dickie, John P.
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)


Apsley, Lord
Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.
Iveagh, Countess of


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Duckworth, George A. V.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Duggan, Hubert John
Jamieson, Douglas


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Jesson, Major Thomas E.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Eales, John Frederick
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Eastwood, John Francis
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)


Bateman, A. L.
Edge, Sir William
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Edmondson, Major Sir James
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'th, C.)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Emmett, Charles E. G. C.
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Blindell, James
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.


Bossom, A. C.
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Levy, Thomas


Boulton, W. W.
Fermoy, Lord
Lewis, Oswald


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Flelden, Edward Brockiehurst
Liddall, Walter S.


Bracken, Brendan
Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Lindsay, Noel Ker


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E.R.)
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Ltewellin, Major John J.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Fox, Sir Gifford
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Brass, Captain Sir William
Fraser, Captain Sir Ian
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Loder, Captain J. de Vere


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Loftus, Pierce C.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Ganzonl, Sir John
Lyons, Abraham Montagu


Browne, Captain A. C.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mabane, William


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Gledhill, Gilbert
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)


Burghley, Lord
Glossop, C. W. H.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Burnett, John George
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
McConnell, Sir Joseph


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Goff, Sir Park
McCorguodale, M. S.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Goldie, Noel B.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Caine, G. R. Hall-
Gower, Sir Robert
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
McKie, John Hamilton


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Grattan, Doyle, Sir Nicholas
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Graves, Marjorie
Macmillan, Maurice Harold


Carver, Major William H.
Greene, William P. C.
Magnay, Thomas


Castlereagh, Viscount
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Maitland, Adam


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Grimston, R. V.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Martin, Thomas B.


Chapman, Col. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Clarry, Reginald George
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Meller, Sir Richard James


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tft'd & Chisw'k)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hales, Harold K.
Mitcheson, G. G.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres


Colman, N. C. D.
Hanbury, Cecil
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Hanley, Dennis A.
Moreing, Adrian C.


Conant, R. J. E.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Morgan, Robert H.


Cook, Thomas A.
Harbord, Arthur
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)


Cooke, Douglas
Hartland, George A.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Cooper, A. Duff
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)


Copeland, Ida
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Moss, Captain H. J.


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Munro, Patrick


Cranborne, Viscount
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald


Craven-Ellis, William
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsf'd)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Critchley, Brig.-General A. C.
Hepworth, Joseph
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Crooke, J. Smedley
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
North, Edward T.


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootie)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
O'Connor, Terence James


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Croon-Johnson, R. P.
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)
Palmer, Francis Noel


Patrick, Colin M.
Salmon, Sir Isidore
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Pearson, William G.
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Summersby, Charles H.


Peat, Charles U.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Sutcliffe, Harold


Penny, Sir George
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Templeton, William P.


Perkins, Walter R. D.
Scone, Lord
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Petherick, M.
Selley, Harry R.
Thompson, Sir Luke


Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Power, Sir John Cecil
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Pownall, Slr Assheton
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Procter, Major Henry Adam
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Pybus, Sir John
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Radford, E. A.
Skelton, Archibald Noel
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Slater, John
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-In. F.)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Ramsbotham, Herwald
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, C.)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Smithers, Sir Waldron
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Rathbone, Eleanor
Somerset, Thomas
Wells, Sydney Richard


Ray, Sir William
Somervell, Sir Donald
Weymouth, Viscount


Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-
Soper, Richard
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Remer, John R.
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Robinson, John Roland
Spens, William Patrick
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Ropner, Colonel L.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)
Wise, Alfred R.


Ross, Ronald D.
Stevenson, James
Womersley, Sir Walter


Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Runge, Norah Cecil
Stones, James
Wragg, Herbert


Russell, Albert (Kirkcaldy)
Storey, Samuel
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Strauss, Edward A.



Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Strickland, Captain W. F.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Captain Sir George Bowyer and Commander Southby.


Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.



NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Mainwaring, William Henry


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Banfield, John William
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Batey, Joseph
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Maxton, James


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Milner, Major James


Buchanan, George
Groves, Thomas E.
Nathan, Major H. L.


Cape, Thomas
Grundy, Thomas W.
Owen, Major Goronwy


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Paling, Wilfred


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Harris, Sir Percy
Parkinson, John Allen


Daggar, George
Janner, Barnett
Rea, Walter Russell


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jenkins, Sir William
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Davies, Rhys John (Westboughton)
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Dobble, William
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Edwards, Charles
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Tinker, John Joseph


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Kirkwood, David
Williams, Edward John (ogmore)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Lawson, John James
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Leonard, William
Wilmot, John


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Lunn, William



Gardner, Benjamin Walter
McEntee, Valentine L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
McGovern, John
Mr. D. Graham and Mr. G. Macdonald.


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)



Resolution agreed to.

CLASS VII.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class VII of the Civil Estimates,

put, and agreed to.

CLASS VIII.

Question,
 That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class VIII of the Civil Estimates,

put, and agreed to.

CLASS IX.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported. in respect of Class IX of the Civil Estimates,

put, and agreed to.

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1934.

Question,
 That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Navy Estimates,

put, and agreed to.

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1934.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Army Estimates (including Ordnance Factories Estimate),

put, and agreed to.

AIR ESTIMATES, 1934.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Air Estimates,

put, and agreed to.

REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1934.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Revenue Departments Estimates,

put, and agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS [25TH JULY].

Resolution reported,
That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1935, the sum of £320,149,442 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chamberlain, and Mr. Duff Cooper.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL,

"to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and thirty-five, and to appropriate the supplies granted in this Session of Parliament," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 188.]

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL.

Order for Consideration of Lords Amendments read.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I beg to move, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."
The majority of these Amendments are, in the natural course of things, drafting Amendments. There are, however, two or three Amendments of substance,
and, if the House will permit me, I will call attention to these as we proceed.

11.2 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I do not think that it would be fair to the House to allow the consideration of these Lords Amendments to be taken at this late hour without a mild protest from some of us who spent many hours on this Bill in Committee upstairs. I would remind the House that we have only had these Amendments in our hands for 24 hours and that there are 14 pages of them. Further, we are in this position. In other circumstances, we might have had a champion on the Front Bench in the person of a Minister of Transport who would have known our desires and what took place in Committee. As it is, we are in the miserable situation of having a new Minister of Transport who knows nothing of what occurred upstairs and is unacquainted with the motives and undercurrents in the proceedings there. Consequently, we are in a defenceless position as against the House of Lords, and, although I have always been taught to treat that assembly with the greatest respect, I do not think anybody can doubt that on motoring matters the Lords have bees in their bonnets. All the time when we were considering this Government Measure upstairs, there was another Bill in the House of Lords which was treated there with very little respect, and I maintain that the same treatment has been given to motoring matters in the case of this Bill as was given to that other Bill concerning which no consideration was given to the wishes of the Commons and the wishes of the Committee upstairs. I hope that these Amendments will not be looked upon as mere drafting Amendments. Some of them make big changes in the Bill, and I sincerely trust that we shall be able to discuss them to-night or that we shall be given more time by the Government to discuss them on another occasion.

11.4 p.m.

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: I join with my hon. and gallant Friend in protesting against the rushing through of this Bill. I do not agree with the Minister that most of these Amendments are drafting. A number of them are very important Amendments, and, not only that, but they are similar to Amendments which the late Minister resisted in
Committee and on the Report stage of the Bill. I think we ought to give these matters very careful consideration before the House agrees with another place in Amendments which were rejected when proposed in this House. I feel that this is not a proper time at which to consider 14 pages of Amendments which only arrived in this House this morning. Hon. Members have had the greatest difficulty in going through the Amendments and examining them in the time which has been available. I should like to add my protest to that of my hon. and gallant Friend about the way in which this Bill is being forced through.

11.5 p.m.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: I wish to join in the protest of my two hon. and gallant Friends. The very first Amendment of all is one on which I voted in the opposite direction to the last speaker. It raises, by chance, issues of fundamental importance with regard to law enforcement in this country. There is no opportunity to discuss this adequately at this time of night, before a House which, with all due respect, has not devoted the full time, care and consideration to the Bill that many of us did for long and weary weeks upstairs. It is unfair to the rest of the House, with this added disability, already pointed out by the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon), that there has been a change of Minister in the meantime. They are both able and competent gentlemen, but nevertheless the new Minister cannot have that detailed acquaintance with the Bill which we all acquired during the many long and weary weeks upstairs, when, for nearly two months, I think, we discussed the first Clause, which raises fundamental issues, in respect of which some of us hold the very strongest views and which we regarded as a dangerous and reactionary Clause. Very important Amendments to that Clause have been made in another place, and I think it is quite contrary to good Parliamentary practice that these Amendments should he considered at this time of night by hon. Members who cannot have had any possible opportunity of giving to these important changes the consideration which they deserve.

11.7 p.m.

Captain STRICKLAND: I want to add my protest against this procedure, which seems to me to reduce the Debates, both in Committee upstairs and in this House, to a farce. When Members of this House have devoted weeks of their time to discussing in the greatest detail measures which affect the vast majority of the citizens of this country; when in five days' discussion in the House of Lords we have the whole of that upset, in so far as we discussed certain Clauses; and when we are faced after 11 o'clock at night with meeting certain Amendments moved in another place, it is not fair. If they were merely drafting Amendments, or Amendments which really strengthened the purpose of the Bill, as outlined by the Minister in presenting it, there might be some reason for agreeing, but when you find that in Committee upstairs the Minister strongly resisted an Amendment which has afterwards been discussed in another place and there again resisted by the Government spokesman and then inserted in the Bill, because the Government feared to face defeat in that Chamber, and then you find the Bill brought here and the whole matter reopened for discussion after 11 o'clock at night, it is not treating this House with the respect which is its due. I can see no reason why the Bill should be rushed through to-night. The Session is not to be finished on Tuesday next, but is to be carried forward until October. There is no -specific reason why we should not be given greater time to understand what is behind this new move in another place, and I hope we shall record our protest against the loss of the privileges of this House at what can only be called the dictate of the Second Chamber, over and above the discussion in this House and in Committee upstairs. I hope the Minister will see his way not to push the Bill through to-night, because it must meet with the greatest possible resistance from those of us who honour the privileges of this House.

11.10 p.m.

Mr. T. SMITH: I want to join in these protests," but from an entirely different angle. While this Bill was in Committee upstairs I do not think I agreed with any Amendment of hon. Members opposite, and I do not suppose I shall agree with them on these Amendments. I think, however, that a protest ought to
be made because 11 o'clock at night is not the proper time to discuss 14 pages of Amendments to a Bill that has so many controversial Clauses. I cannot agree with hon. Gentlemen opposite that we ought to protest merely because another place inserted Amendments. I know from experience that if another place had put in Amendments with which hon. Members agreed, they would have welcomed the action of another place. My protest is not with regard to what another place has done on this particular Bill, but because I believe that at this time of the night we cannot give adequate discussion to the various Amendments.

11.12 p.m.

Mr. REMER: I also want to join with my hon. Friends who have spoken, because in 1930, when the Road Traffic Act was going through this House, I took no small part in the discussions on that Measure. I was not on the Committee on this Bill, although I applied through the usual channels to be put on, and it is not possible for me to find out what these 14 pages of Amendments mean, having only received them to-day. I know the first Amendment is quite simple to understand, but the others are very difficult, especially in a, complicated Measure of this kind. We have to look back to the principal Act to find out what that Act says. It is a monstrous thing that this House at 11 o'clock at night should be asked to deal. with a Measure which may have far-reaching effects, and to deal with the fines and various other matters affecting our constituents. Therefore, I say it is not right that the House of Commons should proceed with this matter to-night.

11.13 p.m.

Mr. MAXTON: I have a word to say on this subject. I speak with a certain amount of diffidence although perhaps with greater feeling than anyone who has spoken. I should imagine that this business would not have been put down without consultation through the usual channels, and that therefore those who have spoken are committed, though perhaps without their knowledge. My little tributary did not flow into the usual channels, and therefore I am perfectly free and at the disposal of the House to render it what service I can. I am speaking for my party. In the whole business of the winding-up of this part of the
Session there has been an unseemly cramming of a large amount of business into a small compass of time. In weather like this and at this season of the year it becomes easy to find the soft spot in hon. Members and to get a lot of business through in two or three days. It is no good complaining of the other place having made too many Amendments. I like to see the other place showing signs of life and interest. The fact that they have produced a nice little brochure embodying 14 pages of Amendments ought not to be held as a reproach against them. But I think the fact that there are 14 pages of Amendments may provide a real remedy for those who feel that a constitutional issue has been raised.
With a much smaller number of Lords Amendments before us I have seen a comparatively few Members of the House proceed, even at this unseemly hour, to examine them very closely. The deeper the ignorance with which you start the longer it takes you to appreciate the full meaning of every Amendment, and with 14 pages of Amendments that process might take up a lot of time between now and to-morrow morning. We here are particularly interested in this matter, because after these 14 pages of Amendments have been disposed of there are a certain number of Amendments which another place has inserted in the Scottish Poor Law Bill. We are standing in the queue behind the traffic people, waiting our turn on the Poor Law. We will wait, and if those hon. Members who are protesting about the Government's way of handling this matter are prepared to start on the 14 pages of Amendments any little assistance that we, from this part of the House, can give in the careful, detailed, meticulous examination of each Amendment on the Paper will be freely and heartily given. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury and the Minister of Transport will recognise at some time to-morrow that it would perhaps be better to postpone tile further progress of this Measure until we resume on 30th October, inspired and invigorated by our holiday and ready to get down to the thing in the proper spirit. If the Government are pressed for time in the short period that exists when we resume I can see one way in which they can get it. As one who
laboured very hard in Committee on the Incitement to Disaffection Bill I am ready, even now, to say that if the Government withdraw it I will not hold that fact against them. If they drop that Bill and give the days which they have set aside for its examination to the Road Traffic Bill there need be no undue delay in concluding the Session. That is a helpful and constructive contribution to the problem before the House. If the hon. Members who have protested are ready to begin, we are ready to take off our coats and get down to the work.

11.20 p.m.

Miss RATHBONE: We have already had six speeches on this Motion. I merely wish to submit the observation that on the roads last week there were, if I remember rightly, 140 deaths and about 3,000 accidents, and that therefore there are at least 3,150 reasons why this Bill should be hurried through. The House has discussed the matter in a very lighthearted spirit, but the families of those sufferers do not regard the matter in an equally lighthearted way.

11.21 p.m.

Sir GIFFORD FOX: I also wish to register my protest, and to see the Bill postponed till October. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) has said that we have already had Measures postponed till October. There is the Incitement to Disaffection Bill, which was strenuously opposed upstairs and three Members of the Government worked hard to get it through, only to find that it is now put off till October. Now we find that we have to sit late and discuss this Bill. As was stated by the hon. and gallant Member for Clitheroe (Sir W. Brass), we do not object to the Lords Amendments, but we do object to their being brought down at such short notice. We ought to have an opportunity of looking into them and of discussing them.

11.22 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I think the Minister ought to say one or two words on this. We have no objection to the Lords Amendments to the Scottish Poor Law Bill, because they are very minor in character. They do not make any alteration in principle to the Bill, but rather tend to improve it, but those of us who are interested in it must wait
until the Bill now before us is out of the road. I ask the Patronage Secretary whether, in view of the few Amendments on minor points, the Scottish Poor Law Bill cannot be put on first.
The hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) has used about the only argument that can be used when she says that this is a Bill which will affect the lives of many people if it does not pass. I am not going to deal with that argument, because there are two ample replies to it, one of which is that the Minister already has all the administrative power required to put a stop to what she complains of. In one Amendment that is down to the Bill, however, there is a proposal to alter a sentence of six months to two years. There may be first-class reasons for that, but one has no right to bring such matters forward at this time of night. There is an issue in that for the Opposition far greater than for those who have raised the point, and one affecting the lives of other people. If the Opposition agreed to it for one section of people, they would be thrown into the unenviable position of having it flung at them that they had agreed to it for other sections. The hon. Lady for the English Universities may say that the Amendment to alter penalties is for a good purpose; that may be, and the House has two or three alternatives. Nobody wants this Bill.
The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) is quite right. There is only one constitutional remedy, and that is for the House to sit till 12 o'clock to-morrow. It is true that there is the alternative of accepting the word of the hon. Lady that the Bill is a good one, but we do riot usually accept each other's word in these matters. Much as we think of the hon. Lady, we like to examine them. The Patronage Secretary has sat here with me many times throughout the night until the small hours, and he knows that, while it can be done, it is a procedure that he does not like. It is neither edifying nor good, and the Government would be well advised to adopt some alternative method.
I am only concerned with the provisions as to criminal penalties. There is an ever-increasing army of men employed in driving vehicles on the roads—working men. You cannot allow them to be under
a penalty of this kind without examination and careful thought, and I trust that the Government will reconsider the matter. The Minister has a reputation, not undeserved, for being smart. Rapid promotion is a better test than any other in this House. He is entitled to say something in reply. He used, when he sat in this part of the House, to make various demands; let him not sit there without doing the same. If he had been sitting here now, he would have raised these points.
What is the view of the Government about these Amendments? Do they intend to-night, willy-nilly, to force them through? Are they not going to give any consideration to the protests that have been made? I know that, as the hon. Member for Bridgeton said, there has been some agreement through the usual channels. If that be not true, I readily withdraw. I know that in the case of the Poor Law (Scotland) Bill there was such an agreement. But we did not agree that that Bill should be taken at the end of a long consideration of these present Amendments. If the matter is so urgent as the hon. Lady says, we shall just have to make a new arrangement of Parliamentary time; that is all. After all, Parliament can almost do as it likes. That is apparent when one sees the ghastly way in which we throw out millions. I trust that the Minister of Transport will make some reply to the points which have been raised, and let us know exactly what he is going to do, because I, for one, while I am very anxious to get home without delay, am not prepared just to allow these things to go through the House of Commons roughshod.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: I understood through the usual channels that the Government proposed to take certain Lords Amendments. We had no objection to the Amendments, and we understood that the Government wanted to get them through. But, if there are Amendments which are going to raise serious controversy in the ranks of the supporters of the Government, I think we ought to have known about it, because it is unusual for the House to be kept late on a series of Amendments which are really due to party differences in the ranks of the Government. I think it is unreasonable to ask the House to sit
very late if there are going to be prolonged controversies on matters raised between other sections of the House.

11.31 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Captain Margesson): I think that, in the conduct of the business of this House during the last year and before, the Government have done everything in their power to meet the wishes of all sections of the House. Everything has been done that would make for the smooth running of the House. Fully a week ago the Leader of the House announced what business had to be concluded before rising for the Summer Recess and said that, provided that business was concluded, which included the Lords Amendments to the Road Traffic Bill and the other Measures which are down for consideration tonight, it would be possible to adjourn on Tuesday. The Government have to conclude that programme, and there only remains to-night's work to be concluded. I appeal to hon. Members to give adequate and fair discussion to these Amendments. If that is done without prolonged discussion, I am certain that we can conclude our labours to-night at a not unreasonable hour and finish up the Session as we have conducted it throughout in the spirit of all of us doing our best to get the work through which has to be accomplished.

Captain STRICKLAND: What steps were taken to consult with those of us who were interested in the matter?

11.34 p.m.

Earl WINTERTON: The Parliamentary Secretary has placed supporters of the Government in some difficulty. He assumed, I have no doubt rightly, that the whole House wishes to get away on Tuesday next. There is no particular reason why they should get away. After all, we live in a time of great difficulty and anxiety and we are going to have a fairly long Recess. That, however, is not the point at issue. When we were on the opposite side of the House we frequently protested against important Lords Amendments being taken after 11 o'clock. We protested that it was not fair to the other place or to this House. In this matter, as in so many others, we are creating a precedent, because we are taking no less than 14 pages of Amend-
ments, some at least important, at this late hour. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who sit on the Front Bench opposite will be very foolish if they do not follow it when they get into office. If hon. Members who are supporters of the Government are satisfied to do that from the point of view of the Government it may be all right, but from the point of view of the House of Commons and the procedure of the House, I believe that it will be a mistake. I earnestly appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House—I presume that the Home Secretary is the Leader of the House at the moment as senior Cabinet Minister present on the Front Bench—to see whether we cannot avoid this growing habit of taking after Eleven o'Clock important Amendments from another place. There are 14 pages of Amendments on this occasion, and if this sort of thing cannot be avoided, the sooner the procedure of this House is altered the better.

11.36 p.m.

Mr. MARTIN: I would point out to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury that he has put the Members of the Committee which dealt with this Bill upstairs in a very difficult situation. He has appealed to the main protagonists who carried on most of the discusion upstairs,

but there are many back bench members like myself who spent many hours on that Committee and who now feel that the result of our labours has, in a sense, been somewhat cynically set aside. I think that many back bench Members on that Committee who have no particularly strong feelings but who are trying to balance the pros and cons of the matter, will agree that we have been put into an awkward situation by being asked at the last minute to support Amendments which set aside many of our serious considerations.

11.37 p.m.

Mr. ALBERY: Anyone who has listened to the Debate to-night must feel in some difficulty in spite of the explanation given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury. One cannot help feeling that there are important matters to be discussed and that they are unlikely to receive adequate discussion _to-night. I believe that I voice the views of a good many Members here when I say that, if it is absolutely necessary that these Amendments should be taken before the Recess, we certainly would prefer that the House should sit for one day longer.

Question put, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."

The House divided: Ayes, 193; Noes, 68.

Division No. 358.]
AYES,
[11.39 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Ford, Sir Patrick J.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'K'nh'd)
Colman, N. C. D.
Fremantle, Sir Francis


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Cooper, A. Duff
Goff, Sir Park


Aske, Sir Robert William
Cranborne, Viscount
Goldie, Noel B.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Craven-Ellis, William
Graves, Marjorie


Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Greene, William P. C.


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Grimston, R. V.


Bateman, A. L.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsmith, C.)
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Guy, J. C. Morrison


Been, Sir Arthur Shirley
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hanbury, Cecil


Blindell, James
Dickie, John P.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Bossom, A. C.
Drummond-Wolff, H. M. C.
Harbord, Arthur


Boulton, W. W.
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Harris, Sir Percy


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Duggan, Hubert John
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Edge, Sir William
Hepworth, Joseph


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Edmondson, Major Sir James
Holdsworth, Herbert


Broadbent, Colonel John
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Hope, Sydney (Chester, Stalybridge)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Eillston, Captain George Sampson
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Browne, Captain A. C.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Hornby, Frank


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Horsbrugh, Florence


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Howard, Tom Forrest


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)


Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)


Clarry, Reginald George
Fleming, Edward Lascelles
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Jamieson, Douglas


Janner, Barnett
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Smith, Sir Robert (Ab'd'n & K'dine, G.)


Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Palmer, Francis Noel
Somervell, Sir Donald


Leckie, J. A.
Patrick, Colin M.
Soper, Richard


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Pearson, William G.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Peat, Charles U.
Stones, James


Levy, Thomas
Penny, Sir George
Strauss, Edward A.


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Petherick, M.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Power, Sir John Cecil
Templeton, William P.


Loftus, Pierce C.
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Pybus, Sir John
Thompson, Sir Luke


Mabane, William
Radford, E. A.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


McConnell, Sir Joseph
Rathbone, Eleanor
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Ray, Sir William
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


McKie, John Hamilton
Rea, Walter Russell
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Magnay, Thomas
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Ross, Ronald D.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Mender, Geoffrey le M.
Ross Taylor, Waiter (Woodbridge)
Weymouth, Viscount


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Martin, Thomas B.
Runge, Norah Cecil
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wise, Alfred R.


Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Womersley, Sir Walter


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisaw'k)
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard



Mitcheson, G. G.
Scone, Lord
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Selley, Harry R.
Commander Southby and Dr. Morris-Jones.


Moreing, Adrian C.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.



Morgan, Robert H.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)



NOES.


Albery, Irving James
Gledhill, Gilbert
Paling, Wilfred


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Parkinson, John Allen


Attlee, Clement Richard
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Batey, Joseph
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Remer, John R.


Bracken, Brendan
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Braithwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Hanley, Dennis A.
Robinson, John Roland


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Jenkins, Sir William
Ropner, Colonel L.


Buchanan, George
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Burghley, Lord
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)


Cape, Thomas
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S. W.)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Carver, Major William H.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Leonard, William
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Tinker, John Joseph


Conant, R. J. E.
McEntee, Valentine L.
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Crippe, Sir Stafford
McGovern, John
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Daggar, George
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Wilmot, John


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Mainwaring, William Henry
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Dobbie, William
Maxton, James
Wise, Alfred R.


Edwards, Charles
Milner, Major James
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale



Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald
Sir Gifford Fox and Captain Strickland.


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Nathan, Major H. L.

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 1.—(General speed limit of thirty miles per hour in bwilt-up areas.)

Lords Amendment: In page 1, line 11, leave out from "hour" to the end of line 12.

11.47 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I beg to move, "That this House sloth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
When the Bill was first presented to the House the speed limit was in force throughout the whole 24 hours, but in the course of the Committee stage my predecessor accepted an Amendment to
leave out the restriction between the hours of midnight and five a.m., and he did so because the figures of accidents disclosed that the casualties are fewer between those particular hours. When the Bill reached another place both those in favour of a speed limit and those who are opposed to it felt that no logical distinction could be made as to the hours during which a speed limit was to be in force.
I can understand a difference on principle as to whether there should be a speed limit, but such a difference does not seem to be involved here. I am anxious to get the Bill through before the Recess, particularly in view of one of the
Clauses in it. It seems to me so desirable to do what can be done by way of pedestrian crossings to reduce the number of accidents that I feel it would be a grave risk at this stage to differ with the Lords, not on the principle of a speed limit, but on the hours during which it shall be in force. I hope the House will accept my view. I sympathise with the House in that they have a Minister in charge of the Bill who has not conducted it through its previous stages, and I trust that the House will sympathise with me. There are provisions in the Bill, particularly one which will save many lives during the Recess, and I do not think it worth while quarrelling in another place upon what I do not conceive to be a major point of principle.

11.50 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I must say that the remarks which have fallen from the Minister of Transport seem very singular to me and I hope the House will not be impressed by his plea that he should get the Bill in order to carry out the policy of pedestrian crossings or the introduction of the speed limit. Again and again, we have pointed out to him that he has the power now to establish crossings, and he is already doing it. One can see them growing up all over the place in London. As regards the speed limit, he has the power under the old Act to introduce that when he likes. Therefore, his present appeal should not deceive the House. I cannot help reminding the House that the most contentious Clause in Committee was Clause 1, which introduces the speed limit in the lit-up areas, sometimes called the built-up areas. Controversy raged about that Clause and I think always will rage on that question, some taking one view in a strong way and others another. But there was one principle underlying the whole discussion, which was that the introduction of the speed limit was necessary because of the accidents which were taking place. When the proposal to suspend the speed limit between these hours at night was introduced the late Minister accepted it because, as he said, at that time there were no accidents, and from the point of view of ordinary common sense he could not refuse it. That may have been a big concession or a small one, but it had a very big psychological effect on the Committee. We got that
concession and our whole attitude was affected by getting that small concession.
Other points were brought up about the difficulty of a speed limit at these hours such as that many local authorities put their lights out at a particular time, that there is nobody about at these hours, that it is impossible for the motorist to see lights which are not lit and to know whether or not he is in an area where he can go over 30 miles an hour. Added to these there being no people on the road, it seemed a satisfactory change to accept. The Minister accepted it with goodwill, though in other respects we never had a more adamant Minister to deal with. He was an anti-motorist if ever there was one. The Committee was anti-motorist, and those of us who took the part of the motorist had an arduous but wasted time because we were beaten on every point which favoured the motorist. Do not let us delude ourselves into the idea that the late Minister was pro-motorist, because this point was the only point we got. Now we are out of the frying pan into the fire, because when the new Minister arrived he said: "This mass murder must stop."

Mr. COCKS: Quite right. The modern blood sport of England.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I think it was very indelicate for a Minister whose work affects the great motoring industry to come down on one side with such enthusiasm as that. I maintain that had there not been a change of Minister, the attitude of the Government on this point would have been very different from what it is now. The Minister in charge at that particular time gave way on this point, and we expect a line from the Government which gave way on it previously, but we get no help from the Front Bench in this case. This Bill, which was discussed almost with acrimony upstairs, is sent to be dealt with in another place by a bigoted body as far As motorists are concerned.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): I must remind the hon. and gallant Member that we are strictly limited to the Amendment under discussion.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: The deliberations of another place are
very extraordinary in relation to this most important matter.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: We must not discuss the deliberations of another place.

Lieut.-Colonel MOOREBRABAZON: That is what we are discussing as a matter of fact. It was a very important Amendment and a very important concession was made by the Minister then in charge of the Bill. The present Minister should back him up rather than let him down.

Sir W. BRASS: I must say that I was surprised to hear the Minister say that it was necessary to give way on this particular Lords Amendment in order to get the Bill. It is quite unnecessary, I can assure him, that we should agree with all the Lords Amendments in order to get the Bill through before the House adjourns for the holidays. It is easy for us to disagree with another place and to send back the Amendments that we disagree with, and then to get the Bill back again and finish it before the House rises next week. I hope that the Minister is not going to take up the attitude that he is to accept all the Amendments sent down from another place—Amendments that were resisted by his predecessor in Committee and in this House. I hope that all Amendments are to be considered on their merits, and not on the question whether or not we can get the Bill through as quickly as possible. On this particular Lords Amendment I do not agree with my hon. and gallant Friend. During the Committee stage I thought that it was illogical, if a speed limit were accepted, that it should be taken off London between the hours of midnight and 5 a.m., which is just the time very often when a speed limit does count. I am not suggesting that I agree with a speed limit. I think a speed limit is a perfectly useless thing, that it is quite unenforceable, that it is irritating and annoying, and that it will increase accidents in non-built-up areas. But, apart from that, it is only logical that if there is a speed limit it should not be taken off in London from midnight to 5 a.m.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER: This Amendment does not deal with London only.

Sir W. BRASS: I was referring London because it is an illustration of
the point I wanted to make. Later on in Committee, as a matter of fact, I voted against an Amendment, and voted in the same way as another place because the late Minister of Transport would not accept the suggestion that London should be exempted from a speed limit during those hours. The Minister will have to face one great difficulty if this Amendment be accepted. In a large number of places in the country the lamps are not alight during the night; consequently, it will be difficult for a driver to know if he is in a built-up area. I would remind my hon. Friend that built-up areas are not necessarily places where there are buildings. A built-up area is a place where there is a system of street lighting. We can imagine the difficulty of a driver going along an open straight road with a few telegraph poles on one side and small lamps sticking out from them, not alight and almost invisible; and we ought to get some assurance from the Minister that these lamps are to be kept alight all night so that drivers will know they are in a built-up area, or that he will mark these so-called built-up areas in such a way that drivers will know they may be prosecuted for exceeding the speed limit in them. That point was raised in another place. I am not allowed to quote the Government's reply, but I think I can paraphrase the answer of the Minister in charge of the Bill.
The answer in general words was that the Minister was going to approach the local authorities on this point, and that a direction under Clause 4 would be made to relate to a special time. The Minister might give an explanation how that is possible. My own view is that a direction can only be given that a certain section of road is either permanently to be regarded as in a built-up area or permanently not to be regarded as such. I cannot think that local authorities will give directions that during certain hours of the day a particular portion of road is to be considered not to be in a built-up area. I ask the Minister to give a definite undertaking that the speed limit will not be brought into operation during any hours, especially during the early morning hours, until he is satisfied that drivers will know whether they are in a speed limit area or not.

12.4 a.m.

Sir G. FOX: The question of the turn-of ing out of street lights at 11 o'clock at
night, as is done in many country districts, is very important. In the Committee stage the Minister said that if street lights were put out at 11 o'clock, and the speed limit was suspended from 12, the local authorities would be given the choice of either keeping the lights on from 11 to 12 or of putting reflectors on the lamp standards. This is going to exercise the minds of many small places and agricultural constituencies throughout the country. There is another point. What is going to be the position when the actual top of the lamp has been removed from the so-called street lamp? I would like the Minister to pay particular attention to that point.
I cannot help thinking that the acceptance of this Amendment means that the whole question of a speed limit between midnight and 5 a.m. will be in such a position that the limit will be unable to be enforced. It will be impossible to enforce the law properly at that hour of the night, and it means that the whole system will fall into contempt, like the old speed limit did. People who have to motor late at night—and there are many—will resent being chased by police cars, or perhaps being caught in police traps, because they may be travelling at 35 miles an hour. It it very difficult to know at night, when your speedometer is in darkness, whether you are travelling at 25 or at 35 miles an hour. You may be following another car and think you are going under 30 miles an hour, and then you may find the "speed cop" closing in on you and you may think he is a bandit trying to hold you up. Other people suggest that it is very dangerous to drive faster at these times of the night. My own experience is that after midnight it is probably safer. You have strong headlights, and although there may be cross-roads, if the headlights are on you are able to see the approach of another car from the rays of lights. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the pedestrian?"] The late Minister of Transport said upstairs that the only reason for introducing the speed limit was from the point of view of security, and he instanced the case of children suddenly running out into the road ahead of you, but it is obvious that from midnight till 5 a.m. you will not have many children or other pedestrians suddenly running out in front of your car across the road.
I had hoped we should have the late Minister of Transport on the Front Bench tonight, assisting the new Minister, who has been left with this wretched Bill, or rather this wretched Clause and this wretched Amendment. I am not against the Bill as a whole, but I am against this Amendment. The late Minister stated that he was anxious that no restrictions should be put upon the motorist except those that could be fully justified from the point of view of security. That is why he accepted the Amendment in the Committee upstairs exempting the hours from midnight to 5 a.m., and I would like to see the late Minister coming into the lobby with me and being consistent, because upstairs, when we were discussing the emergency treatment Clause, we had the unedifying spectacle of his voting against the Clause on one day and then on the next day voting the other way.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member must please keep to the Amendment.

Sir G. FOX: The late Minister of Transport said that if you looked at the statistics of fatalities caused between midnight and 5 a.m., you would find that there were only 65 out of many thousands, and that whereas for the 24 hours of the day and night as a whole the majority of fatal accidents occurred in the built-up areas, from midnight to 5 a.m. there were 65 in built-up areas and 77 in non built-up areas, so that from midnight onwards the focus of the heavier number of accidents changed from the built-up to the non built-up areas. I cannot see why this Amendment should be accepted just because the Government want to get on and finish the Bill. There is plenty of time, and it seems to me to be wrong that this sop to the pedestrians by penalising the motorists should be inflicted on all of us who very strongly resent the imposition of the 30 miles speed limit.

12.10 a.m.

Major LLEWELLIN: There is one point that I think we ought to consider before going to a division on this Amendment, and that is whether this speed limit will be enforced by the police during the hours from 12 midnight to 5 a.m. The 20 miles an hour speed limit went out of practical existence in this country long before it was actually terminated by the 1930 Motor Traffic Act, and it went out of use because it was not enforced. In exactly the
same way, this 30 miles an hour speed limit will not be observed by a certain number of motorists unless they know that it is going to be enforced. Therefore, it seems to me that we should only impose it on the motorists at a time when we are definitely going to enforce it by police action. Are we going to enforce it by police action between the hours of midnight and 5 a.m.? If so, it will mean a very large number of policemen staying up all night for very few cars, and the probable result will be that not only in the Metropolitan area, but also in the country districts, people will break the law with impunity between those hours, because there will be no policemen kept up in order to see that they do not break the law. It they break it in those hours, it seems to me that they will be much more likely to break it in the far more dangerous hours when there is much more pedestrian and other traffic on the roads. This is a fundamental point, which I am not sure their Lordships had in mind in passing this Amendment. I think the Government must take the responsibility, if they recommend this Amendment to this House, to see that it is enforced throughout the country at all hours when it is in fact in force, and if they are not going to take the responsibility, it seems to me that we should be quite right in rejecting the Amendment.

12.13 a.m.

Mr. PARKINSON: When the Road Traffic Bill was introduced by the late Minister of Transport, he made the particular point that he wanted to secure safety on the roads, and I am sure that those who were Members of the Committee upstairs will agree that he based the whole of his arguments on this point on the security which would be offered, not only to pedestrians, but in regard to accidents in general. The last speaker referred to the fact that the organisation of this Measure would have to be carried out by the Department. I take it that they are doing that at the moment, and that they will, of course, be responsible for the working of their own Act. The hon. Member for Clitheroe (Sir W. Brass) spoke about the non-lighting of the roads during the night. I put it to the Minister that there should be some kind of uniform sign or lighting throughout the country in order to carry out the provisions of this Clause.
I hope the Minister will not move on this point. I opposed the alteration in the Committee upstairs, and I oppose the alteration now, because I do not think it is necessary. I do, not think we ought to break the day in two at all. What is right in the day time should be right in the night time also, because there is no real difference in the circumstances between darkness and daylight. It has been said that there are no pedestrians on the roads at night, but I could find places where people come home from their work at every hour of the night, from 10 o'clock until six in the morning, and not singly, here and there, but in great communities of workpeople. If we allow motorists to carry on along the roads at 50 and 60 miles an hour, or at whatever speed they are able to go, shall we be doing the right thing in the interests of the pedestrian? No. We ought to see to it that security is the first word and that the prevention of accidents is the second word, because, after all, the slaughter on the roads that is taking place in our country is a disgrace not only to the motorists, but to the Government as well. If everybody did his part, as he should, and if every motorist would think things out in a common sense way, we should have no difficulties, and the regulations made by the Minister would be properly carried out.
There is a further point, which has not been mentioned, in regard to the time. I wonder how many watches of motorists will go wrong when the police stop the cars. I wonder how many motorists will allege that the policemen's watches are wrong. The time will be 5 to 12 by some watches and 12 o'clock by others. I hold no brief for pedestrians or anybody else, but it is clear that that little liberty will be taken which is the most dangerous. I hope that the Minister will hold tight to the Amendment that has been sent from the Lords. I objected in Committee, when I told the then Minister of Transport that he was yielding too easily to the motoring interests of the country as against the interests and welfare of the pedestrians and the prevention of accidents. I hope that the Minister will not move from the position which he has taken up. I am pleased to support the Amendment before the House.

12.17 a.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: If the situation were not so serious it would almost be funny. The Government are asking their supporters to vote for the Lords Amendment, but in Committee those supporters were told that the Whips were put on for them to vote against that Amendment and one wonders what the purpose is. The Amendment is a good one, and. if I had been on the Committee I should have supported it. I cannot follow the reasoning of hon. Members who stop at the 30 mile per hour limit for built-up areas. Some hon. Members agreed in Committee to the limit being exceeded in places that were not built-up.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Gentleman that we are net discussing the Bill.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I know, but I am entitled, in answer, to show the inconsistency of one proposal with another. The thirty-mile limit is good, but there is a difficulty in finding out whether the time is or is not 12 o'clock. When I heard that argument from the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson), I wondered about the test of the speed limit itself. What is thirty miles an hour and what is not? There is no Greenwich time system for speedometers. The Government's approach, in this particular, is wrong. I support the Amendment, because I believe in the thirty-mile speed limit. We ought also to be considering a proposition that motors should not be made that can go faster than thirty miles an hour. That is the point. If there be danger when cars travel at a speed beyond thirty miles an hour, they should be illegal. I think the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) has a real grievance here. The Government bought off the opposition by agreeing to his Amendment in Committee. In the Committee on the Scottish Poor Law Bill the Government bought off my opposition by offering me certain Amendments, and I should be very much annoyed if the Government, at 12 o'clock at night, proposed to reverse the position, after I had made a reasonable compromise. The Minister of Transport expressed the hope that we would give him sympathy in the position in which he finds himself. We will, though he was the last man to extend it to others when he sat over here. Not only has he a new
job, but he has no Parliamentary Secretary to assist him. It would have been invaluable in this Debate to have two men representing the Ministry of Transport. From that point of view we do extend to him our sympathy.
I am in favour of having a 30-miles an hour speed limit in all places, not only built-up areas. It should be illegal to make motor cars which travel at more than 30 miles an hour, except ambulances and fire engines. In any case I take the view that it would be difficult to administer this provision. The hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey must remember that this Bill does not represent merely the wish of the Government in this matter. There is a public demand for it. People feel that it will be a means of safeguarding life. I would make this appeal to motorists, as a humble man who has nothing to do with motor cars. If motorists do not want to be punished by Bills of this character they must pay greater respect than they have done so far to the other users of the roads. The Government and the Minister are not to blame for this legislation, but, to a great extent, the motorists themselves.
But there is a ground for legitimate grievance in the action the Government are now taking after having bought off opposition in Committee. They called upon their supporters in Committee to back them in a certain course of action, and down here in the House they ask them to oppose that course. I shall vote with those who favour a speed limit in built-up areas. I hope the Government will show a little more consistency, for the sake of their supporters. It is most undignified on their part to change their attitude on this question after only a few weeks, and without any new evidence being submitted on that point. In the Committee the Minister of Transport made a speech advocating this proposal, pointing out how good it would be, and showing annoyance because the hon. Member for Wigan was going to divide against it. To-day his successor is annoyed because hon. Members are not going to vote against the hon. Member for Wigan.
I know there has been a change of office, but we are supposed to have continuity of policy. It may be that second thoughts are better than first thoughts and that the new Minister having reviewed the position, was not
prepared to take the responsibility that his predecessor took. We are entitled to have from the Government a reason for their change of mind. Having forced their supporters to do one thing upstairs they ought, in common courtesy, to give us the reasons that have caused them to change their minds. A speed limit in any place is better than no speed limit. I would make it an absolute rule that no motor car should be built to exceed the thirty miles speed limit

12.22 a.m.

Captain STRICKLAND: I oppose the Amendment proposed in another place not from any desire to hold up the proceedings but because of a very genuine belief 1 hat the proposal now before the House cannot be properly carried into effect. Any law which cannot be properly carried into effect is bound to produce a greater disregard of the law than would otherwise be the case. I would ask the House to consider what the Minister of Transport has suggested to us. He has said, in effect, "I know the Committee upstairs were right, I know what difficulties there will be in enforcing this law; T believe in what my predecessor said in the Committee and I support him in it, but we have had sent to us a proposal passed by the other House and it is far better to accept it, unjust as it may be, incapable as it may be of being carried into effect, than to have a long discussion here in regard to putting it into effect." It reminds me of a certain domestic lady who got into trouble and excused herself on the ground that it was a very small one.
The Committee duly considered this point. It is not something fresh that has been suggested by the other Chamber, not some new view point, but exactly the same suggestion that was fully discussed in Committee supported by the Minister, supported by the Parliamentary Secretary, even to the extent of going to a division in favour of it, and now we are asked to say that what the Committee decided was right was not right, that their judgment was obscure and that it has been corrected by the suggestion made in another place. Very real difficulty will arise if this speed limit is imposed during these hours. It must arise in those districts where not only the light is defective but where the whole lamp is dismantled during Summer time, and where the only definition you
have of the space within which this limit is to operate is that of a built-up area. There cannot possibly be any reason for imposing this speed limit during these particular hours, in view of what the Minister of Transport after consultation with those who advised him, brought before the Committee. He used these words:
We are more likely to get a proper enforcement of the speed limit during the hours when it does matter if we do not try to put that obligation on the motorist during the hours when the figures themselves,cannot be held to justify it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 26th April, 1934, col. 95.]
We are asked to go against that and against the judgment of the Committee. The House would be wise in rejecting the Amendment.

12.30 a.m.

Brigadier-General SPEARS: I hope the House will not accept this Amendment. Several hon. Members have drawn attention to the fact that the law would not be observed, and it seems to me that, unless the Government be prepared to make very large provision for the reinforcement of the police forces of the country, they ought not to pass a law knowing that it will not be observed. I am as anxious as anybody to prevent accidents, and I very much oppose the idea of a thirty miles an hour speed limit, because it seems to me that that in built-up areas would cause long processions of cars following each other, nose to tail and attempting to pass each other within narrow limits. Having had some experience of these immense chains of cars that you see in the neighbourhood of London, it appears to me that they are the most fruitful cause of accidents that you could possibly imagine. If you are to have processions of cars at night when people are more tired as well as by day, I think the number of accidents will increase.
The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson) drew attention to a very important point indeed. He pointed out that the speed limit had been suggested in built-up areas for the reason that there were far more accidents in those areas than there were in the countryside. At night the position is reversed. At night, there are more accidents in the country than there are in the built-up areas. Logically, therefore, you ought to have a thirty miles an hour speed limit
in the country between midnight and five o'clock in the morning and no speed limit in built-up areas. I do hope that the Government will take note of the fact that, for a great variety of reasons, a large number of hon. Members of this House take the strongest possible objection to this Amendment.

12.34 a.m.

Mr. GUY: I think it is very difficult for the Lords Amendment to be justified on its merits. I wish to emphasise the point referred to by one or two previous speakers. When this Amendment was accepted in the Committee upstairs, it did very profoundly influence the attitude of the Committee on Clause 1, because there were certain hon. Members of the Committee who were strongly opposed to a speed limit at all. There were members, like myself, and I understand the present Minister also, who were rather doubtful as to the special value of a speed limit as a factor in avoiding accidents, but, when the Amendment was adopted, it was obvious to the Committee that the opposition to Clause 1 was very considerably diminished, and the Amendment was a very logical one.
I agree with the previous speaker, though I would put his argument in a slightly different way. I think it is obvious that between midnight and five in the morning the conditions in the built-up areas are similar to those in the non-built-up areas throughout the day. The speed limit in Clause 1 is not a general limit but only for the built-up areas. It would be only logical to exclude the operation of the speed limit under Clause 1 between the hours of midnight and five o'clock, when there is little traffic, and—this is a very important point—when there are few elderly people and children about. We have to bear in mind that a great number of the people who are killed and injured on the roads are elderly and young people. Therefore, I think that the Amendment accepted in Committee was a logical and reasonable one, and, although I agree with what the Minister has said, that it was most important in view of Clause 15—which is the pedestrian crossings Clause—that we should get the Bill as soon as possible, it is very difficult to justify the present Amendment on its merits.

12.37 a.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: We spent two months upstairs discussing Clause 1 of the Bill and an important Amendment made was the one which it is now proposed to strike out. The problem is widely different from what it would have been had there been available at the beginning of our discussions the report on traffic accidents which only became available to us in the last day of our examination of the Clause. It only introduces an element of prejudice for the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson) to say that we want to save human lives. That is the purpose which we all of us have in view. The question for us to consider is whether this is the right method or a bad method. There is unanimity in wanting to stop mass murder on the roads, but some hon. Members are gravely concerned as to whether or not what we are doing is going to do far more harm than good in the long run. Some hon. Members hold very strong views about the Clause as a whole, but the consideration I have in mind is this. To pass a law that is going to be disobeyed is a bad thing, because it brings the law into disrepute.
I was driving through a Royal Park to-night, where there was an indication "Twenty miles an hour speed limit." The vehicle in which I was driving, and every other vehicle, was going at approximately thirty miles an hour. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] It is no good saying "shame." Unless you travel at the speed of the general run of traffic you increase rather than diminish the danger. Everybody knows perfectly well that the normal speed in London parks is fifty per cent. in excess of the legal speed. Now we are going to take a period from midnight until five o'clock in the morning. I would have preferred half-past twelve so as to miss a few of the late revellers. To take such a period is absurd, because the enforcement of it is not practical politics. I say without the slightest hesitation that, if we do this, we shall be passing a law which will be disobeyed by every hon. Member of this House. I think it is a scandal for us to pass a law that we all intend to disobey and which we know nearly every other citizen will disobey. By doing so we are not increasing the safety on the roads, but diminishing it. Why was the old twenty miles an hour limit abolished? Because it was a
farce. What is the use of pretending that we are going to know in the ordinary way which is a built-up area and which is not? It will be a complete and absolute farce. My hon. Friend who has just taken over this great responsibility is asking us merely because another place has passed this Amendment late in the Session and there was a shortage of Parliamentary time to reverse the policy of the present Minister of Labour, who has very wisely gone to bed instead of being here to-night. It is not my practice to change my coat, either once a year or once a month; and I see not the slightest reason to change the vote which I gave in Committee. It was not the same vote as that given by the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Sir W. Brass), although we were in agreement on most matters. But, after all, we have spent two solid months trying to make ourselves well-informed on these matters, and now, at this late hour of the night, we are asked to change our minds. It is a complete farce of Parliamentary proceedings, and, if there be a division, I shall go into the lobby against this Amendment from the other place.

12.41 a.m.

Major LLOYD GEORGE: The hon. Member who has just spoken seemed to think that to pass a law that is not going to be obeyed is a farce. That is the only assumption I can come to.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I am always in favour of passing a law if it can be effectively enforced and administered.

Major LLOYD GEORGE: We pass laws in this House with the intention that they shall be enforced. I assume that when the Minister originally put this provision in the Bill he had consulted people and had come to the conclusion that it was necessary. Everyone has come to the conclusion that thirty miles an hour is an ample speed in built-up areas. Having regard to the terrible number of accidents, it is time that something was done, and this Bill has been produced to do something. It is up to us, and it is up to all people who have to administer the law, to see that it is enforced. The simpler the conditions under which the law is put into operation, the easier will it be to enforce. It is a profound mistake to give a period during which the speed limit will not operate. There is far more dangerous driving at night than during the day. People take chances at night that they would not take during the hours of daylight. It would be a direct inducement to people, if you told them that from 12 o'clock to 5 o'clock there was no speed limit—it would be an inducement to a certain type of person to go at any speed he liked. I believe that, if we have come to the conclusion that a speed limit in built-up areas is necessary, it should be necessary for the whole twenty-four hours, with no exception at all.

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 158; Noes, 24.

Division No. 359.]
AYES.
[12.45 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds,W.)
Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Ford, Sir Patrick J.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Fraser, Captain Sir Ian


Albery, Irving James
Conant, R. J. E.
Fremantle, Sir Francis


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Cooper, A. Duff
Fuller, Captain A. G.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Craven-Ellis, William
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Cripps, Sir Stafford
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)


Balfour. Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Bateman, A. L.
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Goff, Sir Park


Blindell, James
Daggar, George
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)


Bossom, A. C.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)


Boulton, W. W.
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Grimston, R. V.


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Dobbie, William
Harbord, Arthur


Brass, Captain Sir William
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Harris, Sir Percy


Broadbent, Colonel John
Duggan, Hubert John
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Heligers, Captain F. F. A.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Edge, Sir William
Hepworth, Joseph


Browne, Captain A. C.
Edmondson, Major Sir James
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)


Buchan-Hepburn. P. G. T.
Edwards, Charles
Holdsworth, Herbert


Buchanan, George
Elliot, Rt, Hon. Walter
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Elmley, Viscount
Horsbrugh, Florence


Carver, Major William H.
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Howard, Tom Forrest


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)


James, Wing-Corn. A. W. H.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Jamieson, Douglas
Milner, Major James
Runge, Norah Cecil


Janner, Barnett
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chlsw'k)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Jenkins, Sir William
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Morgan, Robert H.
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-In-F.)


Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Somervell, Sir Donald


Leckie, J. A.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)
Soper, Richard


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Nation, Brigadier-General.J. J. H.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Liddell, Walter S.
North, Edward T.
Stones, James


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Orr Ewing, I. L.
Strauss, Edward A.


Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Palmer, Francis Noel
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Loder, Captain J. de Vera
Parkinson, John Allen
Sutcliffe, Harold


Loftus, Pierce C.
Patrick, Colin M.
Templeton, William P.


Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Pearson, William G.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Mabane, William
Penny, Sir George
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


MacAndrew. Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Petherick, M.
Tinker, John Joseph


MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Power, Sir John Cecil
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


McConnell, Sir Joseph
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassettaw)
Pybus, Sir John
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


McEntee. Valentine L.
Radford, E. A.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


McGovern, John
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


McKie, John Hamilton
Rathbone, Eleanor
Wilmot, John


Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Ray, Sir William
Womersley, Sir Walter


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Renwick, Major Gustav A.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Mainwaring, William Henry
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)



Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Ropner, Colonel L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.


Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Sir Victor Warrender and Captain Austin Hudson


Maxton, James.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)



NOES


Burghley, Lord
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Cranborne, Viscount
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Weymouth, Viscount


Cross, R. H.
Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Wise, Alfred R.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)



Greene, William P. C.
Robinson, John Roland
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Sir Gifford Fox and Captain Strickland.


Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)



McCorquodale, M. S.




Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment In page 1, line 13, leave out "Section" and insert "Act."

12.55 a.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I beg to move:
" That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

It is a drafting Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: There must have been some reason for putting the word "Section" in the Bill in the beginning, and there must be some reason for changing it to "Act." It may be a drafting Amendment, but why was it not right at the start. I think we are entitled to have some further information from the Minister on the point.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I think, if my hon. and gallant Friend will look at the Clause, he will see that it is more reasonable to have the word "Act" than the word "Section," because the word applies to built-up areas, and it is also used in Clause 2.

Subsequent Lords Amendment in page 2, line 1, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 4, leave out from the second "Act" to the end of line 7.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment paves the way for Amendments on page 4, line 37, and page 5, line 40. These are Government Amendments intended to implement undertakings given in this House or to meet criticisms. The object of them is to create uniformity of the law as between local and general speed limits in regard to penalties, disqualifications, corroborations and aiding and abetting. As the House is well aware from the previous discussions, on a second offence for exceeding the speed limit imprisonment can be imposed where the offence is against the general speed limit and not against the local speed limit, and the object of these Amendments is to see the same principle applies and to bring the law into uniformity.

12.57 a.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I do not want to be obstructive, but I think we are entitled to have some further explanation as to
why we are asked to leave out these words. I see in the Bill that a person is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £20 for a first offence and for a fine not exceeding £50 for a second offence. These are the words that the Minister is proposing to leave out, and he proposes to replace them with certain other words. The Minister said he was proposing to consolidate them; what is the effect of this consolidation? Will a person be liable if he breaks either the local or the national speed limit? I confess I do not understand the Amendment.

12.58 a.m.

Sir W. BRASS: If the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) will look at page 2 of the Amendments, he will see that the penalties there are exactly the same as the penalties that have been deleted from this Clause.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 3, line 16, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 20, after "maintain" insert "the prescribed."

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Sir W. BRASS: I do not think that this is a drafting Amendment. I think it was put in in reply to an undertaking given by the late Minister during the Report stage in the House. I want to ask the Minister that when the word "prescribed" is included, as is suggested by another place—it applies to these particular signs that are going to be put up—we in this House shall have an opportunity to discuss them before they are put up and not after, as we had in the case of the crossings. I hope we shall have an undertaking from the Minister that the design of these signs will be laid on the Table of the House.

12.59 a.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am obliged to the hon. Member. As he told the House, the object of inserting the word "prescribed" is to secure that signs shall be subject to regulations to be laid before the House under the principal Act.

Lords Amendment: in page 4, line 5, leave out from "illumination" to "of" in line 6.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is consequential upon the first Amendment.

Sir W. BRASS: Could the Minister explain how it is consequential. The words to be left out are on page 4 of the Bill in Sub-section 8. The words are:
illumination during the hours of darkness during which a speed limit is to be observed under this section
I cannot see how anything consequential comes in there.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The section will read:
The power conferred on the Minister by Sub-section (2) of Section forty-eight of the principal Act to prescribe the size, colour, and type of traffic signs shall include powers to make regulations for the illumination of traffic signs to be erected under this section, or for the attachment of reflectors thereto.

Subsequent Lords Amendment to page 4, line 17, agreed to.

CLAUSE 2.—(Amendments of S. 10 of, and First Schedule to, the principal Act.)

Lords Amendment: In page 4, leave out lines 34 to 38 and insert:
(2) In subsection (1) of section ton of the principal Act the words and if any person acts in contravention of this section he shall be guilty of an offence ' shall cease to have effect and after the said subsection (1) the following subsection shall be inserted:
'(1A) A person convicted of driving a motor vehicle on a road at a speed exceeding a speed limit imposed by or tinder any enactment shall in respect of that offence be liable on summary conviction to a fine not' exceeding twenty pounds, and in the case of a second or subsequent conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.
The provisions of this subsection shall have effect in substitution for any provision made by or under any other enactment relating to a speed limit for determining the punishment by way of fine or imprisonment to which a person convicted of driving a motor vehicle as aforesaid is to be liable in respect of that offence.'
(3) The following subsections shall be substituted for subsections (2) and (3) of the said section ten:
'(2) A first or second conviction for driving a motor vehicle on a road at a speed exceeding a speed limit imposed by or under any enactment shall not render the person convicted liable to be disqualified for holding or obtaining a licence.
(3) A person prosecuted for driving a motor vehicle on a road at a speed exceeding a speed limit imposed by or under any enactment shall not be liable to be convicted solely on the evidence of one witness to the effect that in the opinion of the witness the person prosecuted was driving the vehicle at a speed exceeding that limit.'
(4) The following proviso shall be substituted for proviso (a) to subsection (4) of the said section ten:—

1.5 a.m.

Sir W. BRASS: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 32, after "witness," to insert:
whether or not such opinion is corroborated by that witness while driving a motor vehicle having observed the speed indicated on a speedometer.
The object of my Amendment is to prevent a motor cyclist pursuing a motor car and watching his speedometer, instead of watching what he is doing. There should be two people, one seeing that the car does not run into the vehicle in front, as he might do when watching the speedometer. This particular point was raised on the Report stage in this House, and the Minister said that he would consider it. It is a very important Amendment and one which I hope the Minister will be able to accept. Quite a lot of accidents might happen as a result of one person pursuing a motor car and trying to keep at a certin distance from the vehicle while watching the speedometer at the same time. If the Minister would accept this Amendment it would mean that the pursuing car would be much safer than if there were only one person in the car, or if a motor bicycle were used for the purpose.

Sir GIFFORD FOX: I beg to second the Amendment to the Lords Amendment.

1.6 a.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell): It may be for the convenience of the House if I indicate our attitude to this Amendment. As my hon. Friend explained to the House in moving the first Amendment to which these particular Amendments are consequential, the object is to bring uniformity into the law with regard to three or four matters, one of which was the corroboration of evidence, as to which there was in the Act of 1930 points similar to those now under discussion.
In respect to local speed limits, no corroboration was necessary. It is pursuant to that difference in uniformity that the words on the paper exactly reproduce the words in the Act of 1930 and make them applicable to all speed limits whatever their source or origin may be. I appreciate the point which my hon. and gallant Friend has put. Still we cannot accept his Amendment. These words have been operative for three or four years. My hon. and gallant Friend foresees disabilities and disadvantages flowing from them. I can reassure him, so far as the police are concerned, that it has been, and will continue to be, the aim and practice of the authorities to see that two men are present. That is what he desires and what will in fact be done. But I do not think it would be right to tie the hands of the courts by inserting the words he has suggested. There may be other occasions when there may be other witnesses than policemen. My hon. and gallant Friend may see someone driving to the danger of the public and, in the fufilment of a public duty follow him and take the speed from his speedometer, say in the neighbourhood of 60 miles an hour. The man may be deserving of a severe sentence. My hon. and gallant Friend may not have anyone with him. So far as the police are concerned, we realise the point. It is the practice to see that there are two men in the vehicle, but we do not think it would be right to tie the hands of the court by accepting the words suggested.

1.8 a.m.

Lieut. - Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: The Solicitor-General, in pointing out what was little known in the country, has performed a duty. He has pointed out the difference between a conviction when you are exceeding the speed limit which is national and a conviction when you are exceeding the speed limit of a local authority. As the House is aware, there have been many cases where the opinion of one policeman was enough to convict people. That was thoroughly unsatisfactory. It is a relief to find that in future, as in the past under the old twenty-miles an hour speed limit, you must have the evidence of two people.

1.9 a.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The hon. and gallant Member may have mis-
understood what I said. The words which we propose to insert by the last Amendment are the words of the Act of 1930. These words have been construed as meaning that one witness may be corroborated by a speedometer. I did not intend to give the House the impression that under these words there will always be two witnesses. The hon. and gallant Gentleman's Amendment was to say that one man's speedometer was not enough, as in the 1930 Act. All I said was that we could not accept his Amendment, but we gave an assurance that in practice, as far as the police vehicles were concerned, we do endeavour always to have two witnesses. It is the fact, however, that the corroboration which is required by the 1930 Act is satisfied by the corroboration of the speedometer.

1.11 a.m.

Lieut. - Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for explaining something about which I am quite clear. Now we have two witnesses—one the policeman and one the speedometer. That is a very puzzling position. The policeman's state. ment is a simple statement of opinion as he approaches or overtakes a vehicle. He has to steer out of the road and compare his own speed against the car he is trying to trap and at the same time he has to look at his speedometer. It is one of the most unreliable forms of evidence ever put before a court. It is quite good enough, of course, to convict any motorist. We are to be treated under this type of legislation in a way which would not be tolerated in any other walk of life.

1.13 a.m.

Mr. NOEL LINDSAY: think the hon. and gallant Gentleman has made a slight slip in speaking of corroboration. He spoke of witnesses being corroborated by the speedometer. That is the whole point. The whole history of this matter is very interesting. In the 1930 Act, Parliament said that a man should not be convicted for exceeding the speed limit on the opinion of one witness. The Divisional Courts said that where there might be one witness who said "Not only did I think that man was going beyond the limit, but my speedometer told me so", that was not merely his opinion. The courts have not said that was corro-
boration. There are many of us who practise in the courts who would be inclined to support my hon. and gallant Friend, and I would ask the Solicitor-General to reconsider this question very carefully.

1.14 a.m.

Mr. CAPORN: There is one question I should like to raise arising out of the illustration used by the hon and learned Gentleman, in which he referred to it being desired in the public interest to obtain evidence against a motorist for breaking the law. He said he might follow him in a car and notice the speedometer going at sixty miles an hour. I would ask him if he does that through a built-up area and he gives evidence against the man for breaking the law, could not he himself be convicted of breaking the law also? Would not that apply equally to anyone who was not an hon. Member of this House?

1.15 a.m.

Captain STRICKLAND: I do hope the Minister will give further consideration to this matter. I do not think anyone can be satisfied that no injustice can arise, because the policeman happened to be on a motor-bike with a speedometer or in a car with a speedometer which showed that the policeman's evidence was corroborated by the speedometer. That seems to me to be a weak argument to bring forward. How is the policeman's evidence corroborated by the speedometer? There is no permanent record of what the speedometer had told that policeman, and therefore I submit that the argument used is irrevalent to the very deep objection that we feel on this matter. I believe that at Oxford, which has been mentioned, they do not convict on the evidence of a single witness. They must have corroborative evidence. We are told that with regard to the Metropolitan police we are always going to have corroborative evidence. I suggest that this is not the type of offence' in which it may be necessary—as in the case of murder—to take one witness and build up a case on circumstantial evidence. In a case like this, do, for goodness sake, give way as far as you can so as to give a sense of justice and fair play to those people who are going to be liable to be penalized for using the roads. If we say that there shall be corroborative evidence before conviction, it should not
be too difficult for us to say that where a policeman gives evidence there must, according to the law of the land, be corroborative evidence. I suggest that in no other case before the courts would the evidence of one witness be taken as being of such a nature that you should inflict heavy penalties on a man who, if the witness's evidence be correct, has been guilty of an offence. I appeal to the Government to give way on this matter and to say that there must be corroborative evidence before people have their licences taken away.

1.17 a.m.

Mr. JANNER: I should like to support the Amendment to the Lords Amendment for the reason that the Solicitor-General himself quoted in somewhat different words. It appears to me that the actual intention in the first instance, when words of this description were used, was that where single witnesses give evidence a man should not be convicted on a question of speed. The fact that the courts at a later stage have held that the intention of those who introduced a measure of this description was not actually carried into effect—as those who are now suggesting the acceptance of the Amendment are implying by it—does riot cover the point, because the Solicitor-General himself has said that it is the practice in the case of police officers to have two witnesses. Why two? If it be necessary in the case of police officers, it is perfectly obvious that it ought to be necessary in the case of civilians who give evidence. In my view, and I think in the view of most reasonable people, the question of speed stands in a different category from the question of dangerous or negligent driving. In these offences, of course, there is no necessity to have corroboration, and you can be convicted for dangerous driving on the evidence of one witness. That being the case, those who transgress in respect of more serious matters are covered by the fact that evidence may be given by one person.
With regard to speed, which does not come under the same category, my view is that it was not intended at the time when this or a similar Clause was put into the previous Act, that it should come under the same category. Otherwise, there would have been no purpose in putting it in. One can quite understand
that no court would have been likely to convict an individual for travelling at an excessive speed if one person had gone into the box and had said, "I think the man was travelling at such and such a speed." That would have been absurd in itself. The courts themselves have sufficient common sense, with all their failings, not to rely entirely on the word of a person who has not looked at something. It must obviously mean that a person, even though he did have some means in his possession of estimating the speed, should not have his evidence accepted unless he had some other individual to come forward and corroborate his evidence. I think there will be no harm done in what,was obviously the intention of those who supported a similar provision in the previous Act, if their point of view were put into proper effect now by the insertion of these words, particularly in view of the penalties. After all, there are serious penalties being imposed now. Everyone is most anxious that) there should be no deaths on the roads and as few accidents as can possibly take place. I do not think this Amendment will interfere with the reduction of accidents.

1.21 a.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: This Amendment raises questions of very great importance. In the past we have thought of a speed limit as something enforced by a speed trap—a policeman at one point, another policeman at another point, stop watches, and means of communication between the two points. We know, or we think we know, from what we were told in Committee by the right hon. Gentleman who is now Minister of Labour that there is no intention whatsoever to have speed traps. The method is to be the method of the following police car. A policeman, when he sees a car exceeding thirty miles an hour in a built-up area, will follow that car, watch the speedometer for a period, and, when he he has come to the conclusion that the driver has broken the law, speed up and overtake him and bring him to a stop. It is obvious, in actual practice, that with a speed limit of thirty miles an hour you will not get many prosecutions unless the speed is in the neighbourhood of thirty-five miles an hour. If it be thirty-five miles an hour, the police car will have to overtake and drive to the grave danger of the public, at a speed of about ten miles
in excess. The prosecuting car has got to record a speed of forty-five miles an hour in order to bring a case against a member of the public because he is driving at over thirty miles an hour.
I deliberately voted against the Government, because we were going to discuss this matter so late. The matters in this clause are of the utmost gravity. We are going to imperil the lives of people because police cars will be driven recklessly to carry out the mandates we are discussing. I would like the Solicitor-General to tell the House whether the other exemptions in the Bill given to fire engines, water carts and other things, apply also to policemen driving at a speed which is a public danger. I hope he will say whether a policeman shall be prosecuted for driving at forty-five miles an hour in a built-up area for the purposes of establishing a prosecution against a private citizen driving at thirty-five miles an hour.

Question, "That these words be there inserted in the Lords Amendment," put, and negatived.

Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 4, at the end, insert:
() The references in subsections (5) and (6) of the said section ten to an offence under the said section and the reference in subsection (6) thereof to an infringement of the provisions of the said section, shall be deemed to include references to driving a motor vehicle on a road at a speed exceeding a speed limit imposed by or under any enactment.

1.24 a.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
As I have already explained to the House, the provisions of the principal Act make it an offence to aid, abet, procure or incite a person to commit an offence against the speed limit. This extends the provisions of the principal Act to local orders such as the Oxford order.

1.25 a.m.

Sir W. BRASS: Do I understand that, if a person was driving in a vehicle, and he was in a hurry to catch his train, and he said to his chauffeur that he wanted to hurry up, and, as a result of those instructions to his chauffeur, he was caught
in a speed trap in a lamp-lit area, he would be prosecuted under Subsection (5) of Section 10 of the principal Act? That particular Subsection was not really dealing with the case of private vehicles at all, but with heavy vehicles under the First Schedule of the Act of 1930. Now the Bill will bring into that category of aiding and abetting everyone sitting in a private car whose chauffeur exceeds thirty miles an hour in a lamp-lit area.

Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 11, At the end, insert:

NEW CLAUSE A.—(Penalty for reckless or dangerous driving.)

A. Two years shall be substituted for six months as the maximum term of imprisonment to which a person shall be liable on conviction on indictment for an offence under section eleven of the principal Act (which relates to reckless or dangerous driving).

1.26 a.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is the Clause which in earlier discussion I indicated increases the penalty from six months to two years. It may be considered with an Amendment which appears later in page 9, and which says that, upon a person indicted for manslaughter, being convicted, the jury may convict under Section 11 of the principal Act. Under the original Act, the maximum penalty was six months. This Amendment proposes to make it two years. Two things are worth emphasising at the outset. This Amendment merely increases the maximum penalty. The court will impose the proper penalty. If they consider that the larger penalty is not required, they will not impose it. This really fixes a maximum which can be imposed, and there is no reason to believe that because the maximum is increased the maximum will be inflicted. The other point which is of importance is that this only applies to proceedings undertaken under Section 11 for reckless or dangerous driving under the Act of 1930. It is, of course, only in what one may call really serious cases that proceedings are taken by indictment, and the matter will come up before a judge of the High Court who will deal with the question.
It may be asked: why should this penalty be increased? I think having had brought to our notice, as we all have had, the dire consequences in loss of human life and human limbs this House to-day does take a more serious view of the criminality and culpability of reckless driving than it did four years ago. After all in reckless and dangerous driving, if it results in the loss of life, the offence of manslaughter would, in most cases, be committed, for which the maximum than can be imposed is penal servitude for life. So far as culpability is concerned, it is mere luck whether a serious accident results in the death of a person or serious injuries. At present, if it results in death and the jury convict of manslaughter, the maximum is penal servitude for life, but, if it results in a man being maimed for life, or disabled, the maximum penalty is only six months. That, I think, is quite disproportionate. This Amendment enables a sentence of two years to be imposed as the maximum. I do not think any person would think it an excessive sentence for a judge to impose in a really bad case. It is said that owing to the fact that very heavy sentences can be imposed for manslaughter juries are reluctant to convict of that offence. In the Clause to which I have referred, if it be accepted by the House, the jury can convict of reckless or dangerous driving where the charge is one of manslaughter. It may be said that, given that alternative, juries will give the man the benefit of the doubt and even in a really bad case where death results convict of dangerous driving, and that that may well be a case where the judge may think it right to inflict a heavier sentence than six months.

1.33 a.m.

Lieut.-Colonel LLEWELLIN: There are two things I want to say on this Clause. It has obviously been put in, not by the Government, but by some member in another place. So far as I have considered offences under the Motor Car Acts, I have regarded being under the influence of drink as a far more serious offence than that of reckless driving, and indeed it was so put forward in the Act of 1930. If we are accepting this Amendment by altering the maximum sentence to two years for reckless driving and at the same time we leave the
maximum sentence for being drunk in charge of a car six months' imprisonment, then we are showing that reckless or dangerous driving is a more serious offence than being drunk in charge of a car. The Amendment has been put into a Bill in a haphazard fashion in another place, and that is a strong reason why Amendments should not be rushed through at this time of night. The Minister is merely asking us to endorse all the Amendments of another place—that is obviously what we are being asked to do—in order that he can get his Bill.
Personally, I think, if we are going to alter this sentence, we certainly ought to alter the sentence for being drunk in charge of a car. There may well be manslaughter cases where the accused person is under the influence of drink, and, I think that man should be liable of conviction for that as well as being liable to be convicted of reckless driving. We ought to get matters into line, and it is really a poor method of legislation to do it in the way that we are doing it to-night. This Amendment might have a rather different effect on the jury from that which the Solicitor-General thinks it will. It is seldom that 'any person convicted of motor manslaughter gets more than twelve months or the maximum of two years. There have been very rare cases in which those sentences have been exceeded, and, in face of that, juries are reluctant to convict in manslaughter cases where the judge may give a man a sentence of twelve or eighteen months or two years' imprisonment. If you have exactly the same maximum for dangerous or reckless driving, the jury, it seems to me, will be equally reluctant to put that power in the hands of the judge whereas, if the sentence were limited to six months, you would be more likely to get a conviction. Personally, I think there would be very few judges who would consider themselves justified in giving more than six months for reckless driving when probably the sentence they would have given for manslaughter would have been only twelve months. It is true that the maximum sentence for manslaughter is penal servitude for life, but I do not think such a sentence has ever been given for motor manslaughter in this country. I think it is fair to say that it is a real punishment for motorists, who are not habitual criminals, to have a sentence of nine or twelve months passed upon them.
I think that this Amendment will work other way, and I appeal to the Solicitor-General and the Minister of Transport to consider the matter and to reject an Amendment which makes the law different in two cases. I hope the House will resist the Amendment.

1.41 a.m.

Sir G. FOX: I wish to register my protest that the penalty for being under the influence of drink is not brought into line with this provision. Some way should be found to introduce some relationship in the matter. It is a farce that we have to accept what has come down from another place, whether it can be improved upon or whether it cannot. Here is one great chance to improve the law and stop this "mass murder on the roads." Many cases of accidents on the roads are due to people being under the influence of drink. In many cases it has been difficult to get convictions; the magistrates have not wished to convict because it might damage a man's future life.

1.42 a.m.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE - BRABAZON: The Government are priding themseves upon dressing up this Bill. Why therefore should they not get the penalties evened out? They have introduced several Amendments. A man can get two years for driving at a reckless speed, but only six months for being drunk in charge of a car. I want to draw the attention of the House to the curious psychological outlook of the Solicitor-General. He takes the view that motorists will start out in a different state of mind if they are liable to get two years instead of six months for driving recklessly. It will not make any difference whether they get six months or two years. He said that he supported this change only because of the public outcry which there has been about accidents. If he is going to say that, I must draw his attention to the fact that accidents have not exceeded those which occurred when there was the twenty mile speed limit. If it be the policy of the Government to introduce a change of this type it was within the province of the Minister of Transport in the Committee to insert such increased penalties. Nothing of the sort occurred. In the Committee we had no inkling that that was in the mind of the Government. Has anything been said in another place to bind the Government? I would like to
register my protest against this indignity of having to agree to a change of this kind at this hour of the night.

1.43 a.m.

Mr. JANNER: There appears to be one point of substance in this provision which has been rather overlooked. I do not know whether the Solicitor-General proposes to deal with the case where there has been a charge of manslaughter later reduced to one of reckless driving or dangerous driving. At present in a minor case of reckless, or dangerous, driving the defence at a police court can decide whether the defendant proposes to be tried there or to go before a jury. He will now be in a serious quandary. He will have to decide, not only whether he wants a jury to try him, but whether he will take the risk of going to the Assizes, where the penalty may be two years, whereas in a police court it would be only four months as the maximum penalty. That appears to be rather a serious matter, because the learned Solicitor-General will know that already it is an exceedingly difficult thing for a man to decide. The man might prefer to be tried by a jury, but it is difficult for him so to decide because of the expense that he is likely to incur. Now he is to have this additional trouble of deciding whether he is to take the risk of two years as against four months. It may in very many cases work considerable hardship. It may be possible even at this late hour to make some addition, or amendment, in order better to cover cases of that description.

1.45 a.m.

Sir W. BRASS: I must say that I was not in the least impressed by the remarks of the learned Solicitor-'General. The penalty for driving to the danger of the public, or driving recklessly, is to be increased from six months, as it is in the original Act, to two years. The penalty for being drunk in charge of a vehicle is still to remain at six months. If anybody be prosecuted for driving recklessly, he will probably plead that he was drunk at the time. He will then not get two years, but six months. That is certainly illogical.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: It is not a defence to a criminal charge to say that you were drunk at the time you
committed it. It would be no defence to a charge of reckless driving to say that you were drunk.

Sir W. BRASS: Then, if a person were drunk in charge of a car, he would be prosecuted for driving to the danger of the public?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: It would depend on what he was doing. If he were driving to the danger of the public and was drunk at the time, then you would proceed under that charge.

Sir W. BRASS: It would have been very much better if in the Clause on page 27 about manslaughter something had been included about penalties. The alternative prosecution was for manslaughter or dangerous driving or some other offence. If something could have been put in there as to the increased penalty, that would have been very much better than to have done what has been done in this particular Clause, namely, to make a maximum of two years instead of six months. The Solicitor-General says that is the maximum. I do not see why he should speak of two years any more than five years. He might just as well put in a maximum of five years. It only shows the difficulty of this sort of Clause which was not put in by the Government at all, but by a Member in another place. It has been brought down here without having been discussed before, and at ten minutes to two in the morning it is being forced through. The Minister is sticking his toes in and not going to make any concession at all. The whole thing is a complete farce, and we are going simply to sit here until he has got the Bill and it becomes the law of the land and all the protests that we make are completely useless.

1.53 a.m.

Mr. N. LINDSAY: May I make one suggestion to the Solicitor-General which I think may provide a solution? There are only two cases in which a person can be tried on indictment for dangerous driving—first, when he himself elects to go before a jury; and, secondly, in a new case, which results from a later Amendment brought up in another place. There has been a difference of judicial opinion about what would happen where a person is tried for manslaughter, and whether it be possible to acquit him on
that charge and at the same time say that he has been guilty of negligence. I understand that a later Amendment, on page 9, proposes to clarify the law on this question and to show that where a man is acquitted of manslaughter he may at the same time be convicted of dangerous driving. That is a new departure. If you make the maximum penalty two years on the first head when a man elects to go before a jury on a charge under Section 11 of the principal Act, then you raise two dilemmas and difficulties which have been pointed out compellingly by the hon. and gallant Member for Uxbridge (Lieut.-Colonel Llewellin). I do not think you can escape from those dilemmas, if you make two years apply to ordinary cases where a person is brought before the magistrates and elects to go before a jury.
It would meet the whole position if you were to reject the first Amendment which we are now discussing and add at the end of the Amendment on page 9 a very short sentence saying that, in the case where a man is acquitted of manslaughter but convicted under Section 11, there shall be a maximum penalty of two years. That would meet the whole case of the Solicitor-General and avoid the two dilemmas. I hope the Solicitor-General will see that they are serious dilemmas, and, although this is only an impromptu suggestion on my part, it does seem to me to be a solution.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I think it would be most undesirable that in any case where under a later Clause the jury convicted for dangerous driving—there having been an original charge of manslaughter—this House should say that in that case alone the larger penalty could be imposed. That does not seem to me a solution of the problem.

Mr. LINDSAY: Is it not equally logical to make the size of the penalty depend on the mode of trial?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: That is done. It is in the Act of 1930. If the hon. Gentleman will look at Section 11, he will see that the maximum penalty is four months, whereas on indictment it is six months, and that the maximum fine is £50 whereas on indictment it is 100. I am satisfied that there are many cases where the maximum penalty on indictment is higher. It is logical to have a
higher penalty for reckless and dangerous driving than where a man is drunk. If a man be drunk and is driving dangerously and recklessly, he is proceeded against on that charge.

CLAUSE 4.—(Exceeding speed limits and careless driving—endorsement of licence and disqualification.)

Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 16, after "shall," insert:
unless for any special reason the court thinks fit to order otherwise.

2.1 a.m.

Sir W. BRASS: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 2, to leave out the word "special."

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 140; Noes, 12.

Division No. 360.]
AYES.
[1.58 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Goff, Sir Park
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Nathan, Major H. L.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Graves, Marjorie
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Greene, William P. C.
North, Edward T.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Orr Ewing, I. L.


Bateman, A. L.
Grimston, R. V.
Palmer, Francis Noel


Bilndell, James
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Parkinson, John Allen


Bossom, A. C.
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Pearson, William G.


Boulton, W. W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Penny, Sir George


Bower, Commander Robert Talton
Harbord, Arthur
Petherick, M.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Harris, Sir Percy
Power, Sir John Cecil


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Pybus, Sir John


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Heligers, Captain F. F. A.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Browne, Captain A. C.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Buchan-Hepburn. P. G. T.
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hare-Belisha, Leslie
Ray, Sir William


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Jamieson, Douglas
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Conant, R. J. E.
Jenkins, Sir William
Rosa Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Cooper, A. Duff
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Runge, Norah Cecil


Copeland, Ida
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Craven-Erns, William
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Leckie, J. A.
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Somervell, Sir Donald


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Soper, Richard


Daggar, George
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Daikelth, Earl of
Loftus, Pierce C.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Stones, James


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Mabene, William
Strauss, Edward A.


Dobble, William
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Sutcliffe, Harold


Duggan, Hubert John
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Templeton, William P.


Edge, Sir William
McCorquodale, M. S.
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Edmondson, Major Sir James
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Edwards, Charles
McEntee, Valentine L.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
McKie, John Hamilton
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Elmley, Viscount
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Mainwaring, William Henry
Wise, Alfred R.


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Womersley, Sir Walter


Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Fraser, Captain Sir Ian
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John



Fremantle, Sir Francis
Milner, Major James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Captain Sir George Bowyer and Major George Davies.


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Angiesea)
Morgan, Robert H.





NOES.


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Janner, Barnett
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Liddall, Walter S.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.



Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)
Sir Gifford Fox and Captain Strickland.

I move this Amendment because I want the magistrates to have more discretion than they have by including the words "special reason." I want to make it wider than it is at the present time. What I want to happen is this. Say a person is driving over the speed limit in a built-up area and there is no danger at all and he is merely committing a technical offence, I want it to be possible for the magistrates to take that into account and to say that there is a reason
why the endorsement on the licence should not be made. I think there is another point which might also be mentioned in this particular case. There is a point where the magistrates might consider that an endorsement would prejudice a man getting work later on, and the magistrates might say, "Well, although this man has committed an offence, he is a man who is earning his own living, and therefore we shall not endorse." Then, the next case will come along, and the person concerned has exceeded the speed limit to the same extent exactly, possibly on the same road and at the same time, and, as he is not earning his living by driving, they will say, "In this particular case, which is not a special case, we propose to endorse his licence, because he does not earn his living by driving, although the cases are exactly similar as far as breaking this particular law is concerned."
I appeal to the Minister to give this matter very careful consideration. He is going to impose, later on, a speed limit in certain areas, over a distance of 30,000 miles, about one-third of this country. There will be any number of prosecutions. I have estimated them at 486,000 in 41 months, on the average of the Oxford prosecutions. That is a very serious matter when you consider that all those people will have their licences compulsorily endorsed under this particular Clause of the Bill. The magistrates are the people who try the case, and they understand whether there is any question of danger or carelessness, whether it be a serious case or a perfectly trivial case. They see the witnesses and examine them and find out exactly what was the position. They are very much better able to judge whether a licence should be endorsed or not, and I want to have this Clause as wide as possible in order to give magistrates this discretion which I certainly think they ought to have, and it is for that reason I move.the omission of the word "special."

Sir G. FOX: I beg to second the Amendment to the Lords Amendment. I do think magistrates should have the power to let people keep clean licences. I myself have driven for many years, and I pride myself on having a clean licence. I think there may be special circumstances in which a Court may say that there should be no endorsement.

2.11 a.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I do not think that there is very much between the hon. and gallant Gentleman and ourselves in this matter. I would ask them, however, to consider the effects of the Amendment. It would produce an almost impossible form of words. As the Bill left this House, the court was ordered that it shall endorse particulars' on a licence after the first conviction. That is the primary principle, and we are putting the courts in a great difficulty if we say that they shall do something and then we say that they need not do it. We have had in mind the cases quoted by the hon. and gallant Member for Clitheroe (Sir W. Brass), and that is why we have put in the words in the Lords Amendment. These words are taken from the similar discretion which is given to a court under Section 11 (3) of the Act of 1930, where, as my hon. and gallant Friend will remember, after a conviction it is provided that the licence shall be suspended, but discretion is given to the court. I can assure him that "special reason" covers the case where the offence is small and may affect a man's employment, and that that is clearly a special reason which the Court is entitled to take into consideration. For these reasons, I hope the hon. and gallant Member will not press his Amendment.

2.13 a.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: I hope that the Solicitor-General will meet my hon. Friend on this point. By Clause 4, a person for careless driving may have his licence endorsed, although it may be a trivial offence. If the words "special reason" are left in, they must mean rather exceptional circumstances in which magistrates are to abstain from doing this very unpleasant thing. I remember a case in which I myself was concerned. I was charged with careless driving, and, if this Clause had been enforced and I had been found guilty of the offence, my licence would have been endorsed. The decision was that the charge ought never to have been brought, and I had an apology from Scotland Yard. If the court had accepted the story the policeman told, I should have been convicted of careless driving, and, if the Clause had been in force, I should have had my licence endorsed, although I had com-
mitted no offence whatsoever. I do not like Clause 4 and I support the proposal to leave out the word "special."

Question, "That the word 'special' stand part of the Lords Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: May I be permitted to move the Adjournment of the House?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Dennis Herbert): If I accept the motion at all, in my discretion, I can—and shall—put it forthwith without debate.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
We have now discussed this very important Measure, which will affect the whole country, for some three hours. I refer, of course, particularly to the Amendments from the Lords, and I do not think that anybody who has listened to the debate can say that the objections raised have been trivial. After all, we are in a difficult position. We have had a new Minister and no one knows what would have happened to the Government if the Solicitor-General had not been sitting by his side. The questions raised have been largely legal matters which only lawyers can decide. I do not think it is within the province of the Minister of Transport to reply to these things, and the Solicitor-General has done yeoman service for the Government to-night. I want to ask whether the Government have any power to accept any Amendments. Are we in such a position to-night that

the Government are quite powerless to do anything but accept 14 pages of Amendments, because the other place is not going to sit again. Cannot we have an answer to that question, because, if that be so, we are playing one of the biggest farces ever played in Parliament. If they can tell us I shall be more satisfied as to whether some of these questions before the House are really being decided on their merits. I think that there is an underlying feeling that the 14 pages of Amendments are to be got through to-night, and that the Government have no power to give way on one of them. That seems to me to be a most disgraceful thing.
I do not think that we can be accused of flippancy or obstruction. We sat two and a half months in Committee on this very contentious Bill. We did not all agree. Some of us felt very strongly on the matter. Here we are in the small hours of the morning trying to deal with this question again and altering penalties which have not been the decision of the Government, but are hapazard Amendments introduced in another place during debate. There were very few people present there, and the Government of the day did not feel they could resist this Amendment. We are now in the position of having these haphazard additions and abstractions from the Measure which was changed and altered in another place to consider, and the Government are apparently unable to alter a single comma of what has been done.

Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."

The House divided: Ayes, 24; Noes, 121.

Division No. 361.]
AYES.
[2.24 a.m.


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Jenkins, Sir William
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
McEntee, Valentine L.
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Craven-Eills, William
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Daggar, George
Mainwaring, William Henry
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Milner, Major James
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Cobble, William
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Edwards, Charles
Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald



Fox, Sir Gifford
North, Edward T.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Parkinson, John Allen
Captain Sir William Brass and Captain Strickland.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Bossom, A. C.
Brown, Ernest (Leith)


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Boulton, W. W.
Browne, Captain A. C.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.


Albery, Irving James
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Caporn, Arthur Cecil


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.


Allen. Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Broadbent, Colonel John
Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey


Bateman, A. L.
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.


Conant, R. J. E.
Howard, Tom Forrest
Pybus, Sir John


Cooper, A. Duff
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Copeland, Ida
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Ray, Sir William


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Jamieson, Douglas
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Janner, Barnett
Ropner, Colonel L.


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Kerr, Lieut.-Cot. Charles (Montrose)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset Yeovil)
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Leckie, J. A.
Runge, Norah Cecil


Duggan, Hubert John
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Sandeman, Sir A N. Stewart


Edge, Sir William
Liddall, Walter S.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Edmondson, Major Sir James
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-In-F.)


Elmley, Viscount
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Somervell, Sir Donald


Entwistle, Cyril fullard
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Soper, Richard


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Mabane, William
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Fraser, Captain Sir Ian
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Stones, James


Fremantle, Sir Francis
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Strauss, Edward A.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
McCorquodale, M. S.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesee)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Sutcliffe, Harola


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
McKie, John Hamilton
Templeton, William P.


Goff, Sir Park
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Graves, Marjorie
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D P
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Greene, William P. C.
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Grimston, R. V.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chlsw'k)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wailsend)


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Morgan, Robert H.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Wise, Alfred R.


Harbord, Arthur
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties
Womersley, Sir Walter


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Heligers, Captain F. F. A.
Orr Ewing, I. L.



Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Palmer, Francis Noel
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Pearson, William G.
Sir George Penny and Mr. Blindell.


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Petherick, M.



Horsbrugh, Florence
Power, Sir John Cecil



Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 5.—(Tests of competence to drive of new applicants for licences and of offenders ordered to be tested.)

Subsequent Lords Amendment in page 7, line 9, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 8, line 10, after "the," insert "qualifications."

2.32 a.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I beg to move "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
As will be seen from the wording, this concerns the meaning and sense of the Section and not any alteration of the law.

Subsequent Lords Amendment in page 8, line 11, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 8, line 21, at the end, insert.
(c) for ensuring that a person submitting himself for a test and failing to pass that test shall not be eligible to submit himself to another test by the same or any other person before the expiration of a prescribed period except under an order made by a court of summary jurisdiction under the power conferred by the next sucr.eeding subsection.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I beg to move "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
When the Bill was before the House of Commons, it was pointed out that a man, having failed in one test, might immediately go and submit himself to another officer. The object of this Subsection is to avoid that, just as the next Sub-section is to ensure that he has fair play and can have another chance.

Sir W. BRASS: Would it be possible under this Amendment to prescribe the special period, because in the Amendment it speaks of the "expiration of a prescribed period"? Does not the Minister think it would be better, instead of a "prescribed period" which is not defined, that so many months should be included?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I will, in accordance with what I understand to be the usual practice, consult the representatives of organisations as to what would be a reasonable period.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: Has the Minister consulted the representative organizations on this point? Is he aware that a person who has submitted himself for the test and has not been successful, may feel a grievance because of the result? Should not he, in fairness, be entitled to be tested elsewhere? I think that was the intention when the Bill was before the Committee upstairs.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: There is the next Sub-section.

Mr. GRENFELL: That does not give a man any claim to be tested elsewhere. I should like the Minister to give an assurance on this point.

2.35 a.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: This Amendment goes actually beyond what we discussed in Committee upstairs. We were a little perturbed as to what would happen if the person who conducted a test had a prejudice against somebody and might turn that person down. I cannot think that the court in such circumstances would give a favourable decision, because there would be no obvious kind of reason to bring up against that prejudiced person. It is a grave matter, because such persons are not entitled to go to another person to have a further test unless they get an order from the court of summary jurisdiction. I think this is carrying the test to a point where, if it comes into operation, you are certain to get cases which will mean that later on the Government of the day will be forced to amend the Act.

2.36 a.m.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: We discussed this actual problem, and the Minister told us he saw no objection at all to men going from one examiner to another, because, if a man failed with examiner A, he would be bound to fail with examiner B. Consequently, there was no danger in it, even if he went all over the country trying to pass the test. Under this arrangement, it is obvious that anybody who is a little groggy as to his competence will find out who is the easiest man with whom to pass the test. I do not see any advantage in this Amendment, but great disadvantage and objection to putting in useless words.

Mr. JANNER: I do not know why the Minister cannot tell us what is to be the prescribed time, for that is a matter of very grave importance.

2.37 a.m.

Mr. CAPORN: What objection is there to having a further examination? The applicant has to provide his own car and has to pay a fee which presumably covers any expense to the State or to the local authority. Why, if a man afterwards gets some further instruction—it may be
within a few hours—should he not be allowed to submit himself for a further examination?

Lords Amendment: In page 8, line 24, at the end, insert:
(6) A court of summary jurisdiction acting for the petty sessional division in which a person who has submitted himself for a test of competence to drive resides shall have power on the application of that person to determine whether the test was properly conducted in accordance with the regulations, and, if it appears to the court that the test was not so conducted, the court may order that the applicant shall be eligible to submit himself to another test before the expiration of the period prescribed for the purposes of paragraph (c) of the last foregoing subsection, and may order that any fee payable by the applicant in respect of the test shall not be paid or, if it has been paid, shall be repaid.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

2.38 a.m.

Sir W. BRASS: This new Sub-section says that a court of summary jurisdiction shall have power to determine whether a test was properly conducted before the expiration of the period prescribed. I want to ask what person in the court is capable to decide whether a test was a proper one and was carried out properly. Is the court going to have experts who can say whether it has been carried out all right? If that be not so, I do not see how they are going to come to any judgment upon it.

2.39 a.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: We hope this Clause will never have to be used, except perhaps in exceptional circumstances. Apprehension was expressed that there might be some exceptional and improper methods, where a man might be deliberately prevented from getting qualification, although he was entitled to it. It is obviously a very real safeguard, and I do not think we need go into the question of how it will be done. If there be this right to go to court and tell the circumstances, I think the. House will agree that that is a safeguard. After all, if there should be any difficulty here, it is not a matter which is incapable of being dealt with. We
have no reason to anticipate any sort of unfair play or action in dealing with these tests. We think it is just that there should be this right to go to court, for any unfairness or improper disqualification is just as much susceptible of proof as anything else.

Lords Amendment: In page 8, line 31, at end, insert:

NEW CLAUSE B.—(Amendment of ss. (3) of s. 19 of the principal Act.)

(1) An order varying the periods of time prescribed in section nineteen of the principal Act (which relates to the time for which drivers of certain vehicles may remain continuously on duty) may be made under subsection (3) of the said section so as to have effect only as respects a particular class of public service vehicles, or only as respects public service vehicles when used in particular circumstances.

(2) Where an application is made under the said subsection (3) as respects drivers of stage carriages when used either—

(a) on regular services under a road service licence to which a condition requiring the observance of a timetable is attached; or
(b) on regular services in respect of which no road service licence is required; then, if it is shown to the satisfaction of the Industrial Court and the Minister that the conditions under which the services are operated are such as to secure that the periods deemed to he continuous periods for the purposes of the said section during which the vehicles are driven include times in which the drivers are able to obtain rest and refreshment, the Industrial Court, in advising on the application, and the 'Minister in giving his determination thereon, may have regard to those conditions.

2.40 a.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Clause gives effect to an undertaking given by my right hon. Friend who is now Minister of Labour during the discussion in Committee. It gives power to the Minister and an industrial court to consider applications for variations of the prescribed periods of rest. The Clause is designed to meet difficulties which have confronted drivers on split shifts of duty. Proper safeguards against over-fatigue are included in the Clause. I trust that the House will think that this Amendment meets the suggestion made during the course of discussions in Committee.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: The Minister has referred to an Amendment in Committee which stood in the names of the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) and myself. I welcomed the undertaking then given that our wishes would be met as far as possible and that he was going to meet the representatives of the organisations.

Lords Amendment: In page 8, line 31, at end, insert:

NEW CLAUSE C.—(Prohibition of sale of vehicles in, or alteration thereof to, a condition not complying with regulations as to construction, etc.)

(1) Subject to the provisions of this section it shall not be lawful to sell, or to supply, or to offer to sell or supply, a motor vehicle or trailer for delivery in such a condition that the use thereof on a road in that condition would be unlawful by virtue of the provisions of section three of the principal Act.

(2) Subject to the provisions of this section it shall not be lawful to alter a motor vehicle or trailer so as to render its condition such that the use thereof on a road in that condition would be unlawful by virtue of the provisions of the said section three.

(3) If a motor vehicle or trailer is sold, supplied, offered, or altered, in centravention of the provisions of this section, any person who so sells, supplies, offers, or alters it, or causes or permits it to he so sold, supplied, offered, or altered, shall be guilty of an offence.

(4) A person shall not be convicted for an offence under this section in respect of the sale, supply, offer, or alteration of a motor vehicle or trailer if he proves that it was sold, supplied, offered, or altered, as the case may be, for export from Great Britain, or that he had reasonable cause to believe that the vehicle or trailer would not he used on a road in Great Britain, or would not be so used until it had been put into a condition in which it might lawfully be so used.

2.42 a.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
A similar Clause was moved in Committee here and was resisted by my right hon. Friend who is now Minister of Labour on the grounds that he preferred to obtain the co-operation of the trade. The Minister took the view that by persuasion and understanding he could achieve his purpose. That view was strongly opposed in the Committee here and still more strongly opposed in
another place. We do not propose to resist the Amendment, because it is quite logical and can do no harm In those circumstances, I ask the House to agree to it.

2.43 a.m.

Lieut. - Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: This is indeed comic opera. I could well understand the Minister resisting this Amendment. It is true to say that it might be illogical to sell a vehicle in accordance with the regulations for a vehicle run on the road. But there are certain things that it is quite unnecessary that we should pass. A man may have a particular preference for his own old number plate. If he takes it off and sells the vehicle, apparently he will be liable under this Clause. When an owner takes charge of a vehicle, it is his duty and province to take care of it. It may not have a back reflector. Is it really just and right that the seller should be liable under the law rather than the man whose business it is to run the car? We have got the boot on the wrong leg here. It is a very poor case to say that it can do no harm. It is one of these new tiresome regulations. When an ordinary motorist starts to read this Bill, he will not know anything about the regulations.

2.44 a.m.

Captain STRICKLAND: I do urge the Minister to say whether he cannot meet us on this matter. If any Amendment suggested by another place be more ludicrous than another, it must be this one. I almost feel inclined to express the opinion that we are not likely to get any concession on this matter, because the late Minister of Transport was against it and because in another Chamber the leader, acting for the Government, was also against it and only gave way in the face of possible defeat of the Government. There is a great disadvantage in this Debate, because there are questions which we are anxious to ask the Minister and which it seems to me that it is impossible for him to answer. If he were able to give an answer, I would ask him to give a frank open reply as to how this Clause originated. Did it not originate almost entirely on the question of noisy silencers? Reading through the reports of the Committee stage, or the report in the House of Lords, page after page can be seen devoted to the question of unnecessary noise created by motors in the
street. It is acknowledged that, after a second-hand dealer has parted with a car with a perfectly efficient silencer, it can be altered on the road, and there is no proof as to the condition in which it left the dealers. On top of this Amendment, you are to have all these other things, and under this Amendment the condition of a car as it is sold in the second-hand market may be the subject of a charge brought against the person who actually sold it. I do suggest that this is the main Clause which has shown the justification for the action which we have taken to-night against the aggression of a Government able to impose its will by sheer force of numbers and weight against its own back benchers. We are putting the Minister to the crucial test on this Clause. Has he any power to give justice under this Clause? The Minister should stand up as a House of Commons man and defend our rights. This is a matter which he must know in his heart of hearts will inflict great harm which he cannot justify. I ask him to concede this point and to withdraw the Clause, and, if he cannot withdraw the Clause, to keep it confined to those points which were raised in the Committee upstairs and in another place and not impose a burden which may cripple the whole of the second-hand car trade in the country.

2.52 a.m.

Sir W. BRASS: I think that this is one of the most fantastic Clauses I have ever seen in any Bill. It cannot be defined better than by quoting the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour in Committee upstairs when speaking on the Clause and dealing with the question of silencers. He said that when we were dealing with this kind of thing we could not deal with it on the principle of putting down a Clause with which we all agreed and let it work itself out. He had already said that he did not think they could make the Clause effective simply by finding an improper user of the car and then, if they thought it was in that condition when it left the works, summoning the manufacturer. The right hon. Gentleman did not think that the courts would ever convict. Later the right hon. Gentleman declared that if Parliament wanted to do it Parliament must put in the means by which it could operate. Is there any power for a police
officer to search a works or a garage? That is a question which I hope the Minister will answer. Suppose that I sold a car to an hon. Member opposite and that car did not have a back mirror, I am to be prosecuted under this Clause, because regulations are laid down in the original Act that cars shall carry reflectors. If the brakes are not properly tested and the tyres are not in order, then I can be prosecuted under this ridiculous Clause.
What is going to happen? First of all, the Minister had absolutely no power to tell a police officer to inspect these vehicles and how he was to do it. This is not a Clause put in by the Government; it is a Clause that was put in partly by the Opposition upstairs and was resisted by the Ministry. Then it was proposed in another place and again resisted by the Government who, however, did not try and divide on it, and, after that, another bit was added to it, and now we are brought down here at this time of night to assent to a Clause which has already been resisted by the Government, and we are asked by the Government to give assent to a fantastic Clause which will probably stop all dealings in secondhand cars altogether.

2.56 a.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: This Clause is a lunatic Clause. It does not concern the trade in the way it concerns other private persons selling a car to someone else. The person who sells a car to someone else may after an indefinite time find himself involved in a prosecution with no adequate means of defending himself. He may have forgotten a number of factors and when a prosecution takes place he may find himself in great difficulty to defend himself. I think it is a very incredible step for the Government to take.

2.57 a.m.

Sir G. FOX: May I ask whether there has been agreement with the motor car manufacturers on this point? I would like to know this definitely, for I have a large motor works in my constituency.

2.58 a.m.

Mr. JANNER: While I am sympathetic towards insertions in the Clause which will prevent certain difficulties experienced in respect of silencers, yet it appears to me that it is very much more extensive than a Clause for the protection of the public or of the persons producing motor cars should be. It is not the case of a person not being prosecuted if he had reasonable grounds of belief that the car was not working, but it is specifically making a law whereby any individual must be prosecuted if he sells a car which is not in the condition in which it should be used, and he is then put upon his defence to prove that he did not have it in that condition. That is a very serious thing. It means that every person who is selling a motor car, particularly a second-hand one, is definitely liable to be prosecuted, particularly a person not conversant with the full regulations, and more particularly a person who does not understand the mechanical parts of a car. I think that some alteration should be made to this Clause, so that it should not be a serious offence. At present, it does not give a loophole to any person until after a conviction when he can appear before a court and state that he was honestly of opinion the car would not be used in that condition.

3.2 am.

Mr. ALBERY: It appears to me that the effect of this Clause is that everyone who has to sell a motor car will tell the purchaser that the car is good and that he Can drive it on the road, but under this "law you will have to give me a certificate that you will put it in condition to put it on the road. I am asking you to make out a certificate as if it were not in order; then the onus will he on you when it is on the road that it is in proper order." The public will be forced to 'adopt that means of nullifying the Clause we are asked to pass to-night.

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 116; Noes, 26.

Division No. 362.]
AYES.
[3.3 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Bateman, A. L.
Bower, Commander Robert Tatton


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Blindell, James
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Bossom, A. C.
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Boulton, W. W.
Broadbent, Colonel John


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hallgers, Captain F. F. A.
Petherick, M


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Power, Sir John Cecil


Browne, Captain A. C.
Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)
Pybus, Sir John


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Howard, Tom Forrest
Ray, Sir William


Conant, R. J. E.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Cooper, A. Duff
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Copeland, Ida
Jamieson, Douglas
Ropner, Colonel L.


Craven-Ellis, William
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Leckie, J. A.
Runge, Norah Cecil


Dalkeith, Earl of
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Loftus, Pierce C.
Smith, Sir J. Walker- (Barrow-in-F.)


Duggan, Hubert John
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Somervell, Sir Donald


Edge, Sir William
Mabane, William
Soper, Richard


Edmondson, Major Sir James
MacAndrew, Lt.-Col C. G. (Partick)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Elmley, Viscount
McCorguodale, M. S.
Stones, James


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Strauss, Edward A.


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
McKie, John Hamilton
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Ford, Sir Patrick J.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Sutcliffe, Harold


Fraser, Captain Sir Ian
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Templeton, William P.


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Goff, Sir Park
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univerlies)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Nall-Cain, Hon. Ronald
Wise, Alfred R.


Graves, Marjorie
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H
Womersley, Sir Walter


Grimston, R. V.
North, Edward T.
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Orr Ewing, I. L.



Guy, J. C. Morrison
Palmer, Francis Noel
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pearson, William G.
Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Lambert Ward and Major George Davies.


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Penny, Sir George



NOES.


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Milner, Major James


Brass, Captain Sir William
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Janner, Barnett
Parkinson, John Allen


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jenkins, Sir William
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Daggar, George
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Dabble, William
McEntee, Valentine L.



Edwards, Charles
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Mainwaring, William Henry
Captain Strickland and Sir Gifford Fox.


Greene, William P. C
Martin, Thomas B.



Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 11, line 1, agreed to.

CLAUSE 9.—(Avoidance of restriction on scope of policies covering third-party risks.)

Lords Amendment: In page 11, line 38, leave out "carried in the vehicle", and insert instead thereof "that the vehicle carries".

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment ".

3.10 a.m.

Mr. ALED ROBERTS: This seems to me vary much more than a drafting Amendment. It certainly only makes a change in the wording, but the effect to increase the premiums to about four or five hundred thousand motor cyclists. We had a lot of discussion in Committee, and the Minister then could see quite clearly
that there were some further directions in which there were loopholes and that insurance companies or individuals might have inadequate policies which did not cover them. He undertook that he would introduce words on the Report stage to fill up the gaps, The House on the Report stage put in certain words. There were some which the Committee had distinctly wished included but which were not included at that stage. The intention of the Committee at the time was to see that people could not get licences and comply with the compulsory insurance conditions in the original principal Act, and that then, if their policies failed to cover them at some time when they were on the road and a third party was knocked down and by reason of some restrictions of the policy, the dependants of the third part should not be deprived of benefit. Some of those conditions have never been incorporated in the Bill. They were the main points in Committee, but instead,
compared with the original Bill, the words have been reversed. It meant that a motor-cyclist who was not covered by this particular Clause could take out his motor-cycle and get an insurance which did not cover him when carrying a pillion passenger. If he wanted to cover himself against accidents to third parties, he could do so on payment of 50 per cent. extra. That was never the intention of the Clause when it was originally discussed upstairs. It seems to me that by some misapprehension or mistake a large class of people who can ill-afford it will be penalized, and that the original people it was intended to cover have been omitted altogether from the scope of the Clause.
I do not know whether the Government realize what is actually going to happen, but it is common knowledge that insurance companies have in fact increased the rates for motor-bicycles whether carrying pillion passengers or not. I do not know whether that was the Government's intention at the time, but I presume that a Clause of this kind would not be drafted except after consultation with the Government. I do not know whether when that consultation took place it was pointed out to the Minister what the effect of the wording would be, or if the Minister made any arrangement with the insurance companies. This may go through on the plea that it is a drafting Amendment, but it is in fact of far-reaching importance, and I should be glad to know if the Government intend to take any action about it.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I should like to assure the hon. Member that this is a drafting Amendment and that there is no intention whatever of changing the Bill.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: Is not there a real point in what the hon. Member has said? The original wording was that the persons must be "carried in the vehicle." The pillion rider is not in the vehicle, but is one of the party whom it carries.

3.15 a.m.

Sir W. BRASS: The Minister may be perfectly right that this is a drafting Amendment, but it is also, a fact that you cannot ride inside a motor-cycle, and consequently, when you say that the
"vehicle carries," it obviously includes motor-cycles. All motor-cycles, in future, whether they carry pillion riders or not, will always have to be insured against third party risks. We have to recognize that in future these words will make every single person who owns a motorcycle pay a premium. If he does riot propose to take pillion riders, he will in fact have to pay a premium to take them. The result will be that premiums will go up by fifty per cent. That is not denied by the Minister. It is probably his intention. Some quite young boys, for example, may have motor-cycles which are not very strong. They will have to insure them to take pillion riders, any way, and having, done so, they will probably take them on motor-cycles which may not be strong enough to take a second rider, and so a number of accidents may occur.

3.18 a.m.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I do not know whether the Government are aware that there is some considerable feeling in the country on this particular point. Many people ride motor-bicycles because they are possibly the cheapest form of transport in which they can indulge. Any increase of expense through insurance will be a very real hardship, and in this case the increase in premiums will be £3. That is a very considerable increase. Although I have got past the age of driving a motor-cycle—a very dangerous pastime, especially when you have a pillion rider—I recognise it is a form of transport which is indulged in by the young people of this country, and very rightly. I think it would be well worth 23 to carry someone on the back. Still, everybody does riot desire to do so. Many people go to work on their motorcycles. Far from this being a drafting Amendment, I think it will be the draughtiest Amendment we have ever had from the Government. I do hope that this is changed, and that we shall not loose 200,000 votes of motor-cyclists up and down the country through the crass legislation that we are passing to-night.

Subsequent Lords Amendments in page 16, line 3, agreed to.

CLAUSE 15.—(Foot passenger crossings.)

Lords Amendment: In page 16, line 5, leave out from the beginning to "either" in line 12, and insert:
(4) Within such period after the commencement of this section as the Minister may by, order determine, the council of every borough, urban district and county shall, after consultation with the chief officer of police and after giving public notice that they propose so to do, submit to the Minister either a scheme containing proposals for the establishment of crossings in the borough, or in the urban district, or in the rural districts in the county, as the case may be, or if it appears to them that the establishment of crossings in the borough, or in the urban district, or in any rural district in the county, as the case may be, is unnecessary, a statement of the reasons why they consider the establishment of crossings therein to be unnecessary, and in any case in which such a statement as aforesaid has been submitted the Minister may, if it appears to him that crossings ought to be established in the borough or district to which the statement relates and after giving to the council by whom the statement was submitted an opportunity of making representations, require the council to submit a scheme in relation thereto.
(5) A scheme submitted under the last foregoing subsection shall specify.

Mr. SPEAKER: This Amendment raises a question of Privilege.

3.21 a.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
As the Bill originally stood, a scheme of crossings could be submitted by a local authority. This Amendment was inserted at the desire of the.Government and gives the Minister power to require the local authority to submit a scheme of pedestrian crossings. I attach the utmost importance to the Amendment, for, if the scheme is to be effective, it must be made universal and made universal as quickly as possible. I therefore hope that the House will agree to the Amendment and with the consequential one that affects London.

3.22 a.m.

Sir W. BRASS: I should like to congratulate the Minister on having put forward this Amendment. As a matter of fact, I had an Amendment down on the Order Paper on the Report stage which would have done the same thing, but it was out of Order because it would have created a charge. I think the Minister has done perfectly right to take
these powers to force local authorities to put down these pedestrian crossings.

Question put, and agreed to—[with Special Entry].

Subsequent Lords Amendment, in page 16, line 38, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 17, line 11, leave out Sub-section (9) and insert:
() This section, in its application to the London Traffic Area constituted under the London Traffic Act, 1924, shall have effect subject to such adaptations as may be specified in an order made by the Minister.
Any order made for the purposes of this subsection may be varied by a subsequent order and shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made, and shall not have effect until it has lain upon the Table of each House of Parliament for a period of not less than twenty-eight days during which the House has sat, and if either House during that period presents an Address to His Majesty praying that the order may be annulled, the order shall not come into force, but without prejudice to the making of a new order.

Mr. SPEAKER: I have to call the attention of the House to the fact that this Amendment raises a question of Privilege.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Sir W. BRASS: May we have an explanation of this Amendment?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: It is consequential, because the provisions as regards London have to be quite different, and this is the nearest approach that we can make to deal with London on the same basis as other places.

Sir W. BRASS: I only asked for an explanation, because I moved to delete the same Clause in Committee and was refused by the Government.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: Can we have an explanation of why this Clause is really necessary with regard to London, because we have been assured that the Minister had all the powers to make all the crossings that he desired. In fact, he has done so, and we have already seen in London some of the most complicated crossings in the whole world. Is he putting them down illegally? If not, why does he want these particular powers?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I now only !have powers of persuasion coupled with the powers of paying for the crossings when they are put down.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: Does the Minister mean to tell us that all the crossings to-day have not been put down legally?

Question put, and agreed to [with Special Entry].

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 17, line 29, agreed to.

CLAUSE 20.—(Advances from Road Fund for weighing machines.)

Lords Amendment: In page 18, line 32, leave out the Clause.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Clause is omitted 'and inserted in a Schedule.

Subsequent Lords Amendments page 22, line 40, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 23, line 24, at the end, insert:

NEW CLAUSE D.—(Interpretation and amendment of certain provisions as to charges for use of parking places.)

(1) For removing doubts it is hereby declared that the powers conferred on a local authority by subsections (2) and (3) of section ninety of the principal Act (which relate to the appointment of a parking place as a station for public service vehicles and confer amongst other powers a power to make certain charges) are in addition to and not in substitution for the powers conferred on a local authority by section sixty-eight of the Public Health Act, 1925 (which relates to the provision of parking places and confers amongst other powers a power to make regulations as to certain charges).

(2) A local authority shall have power to make charges for the use of a parking place, not being part of a street, as a station for public service vehicles.

The charges to be made under this subsection as respects any vehicles shall be such reasonable charges as may be fixed by the local authority, so however, that if the public service vehicle licence holder in respect of any vehicles using the parking places as a station considers that the charges fixed are unreasonable, then, in default of agreement between the licence holder and the local authority for a reduction thereof, the charges in respect of those vehicles shall be such as may be determined by the Minister.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): I call the attention of the House to the fact that this Amendment raises a question of Privilege.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment is declaratory of the law and enables local authorities beyond any doubt to charge for the use of stations or parking places for public service vehicles. The only change in the law is that it names the Minister in any complaint as to charge.

Question put, and agreed to [with Special Entry].

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 28, line 30, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 29, line 33, at the end, insert:

NEW CLAUSE F.—(Amendments as to licences of drivers and conductors of hackney carriages, and of certain to stage carriages, in the Metropolis.)

Section eight of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act, 1869, as amended, extended, or applied by, or by any order made under, any subsequent enactment (including section fifty-one of the London Passenger Transport Act 1933), shall have effect, as respects licences granted under the said section eight after the date appointed for the coming into operation of this section, with the substitution of three years for one year as the period during which a licence granted under the said section is, if not revoked or suspended, to be in force:

Provided that, with a view to spreading the work of granting such licences, where an application for the grant of such a licence is made within four years from the passing of this Act, the authority by whom the power of granting the licence is exerciseable may direct that any licence granted on the application shall, if not revoked or suspended, continue in force during such period, being a period of not less than one nor more than three years from the date on which the licence is expressed to take effect, as the authority may at the time of the granting of the licence determine.

3.30 a.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Clause makes some provision in regard to vocational licences for driving trams, trolley vehicles, omnibuses, or taxicabs for three years. It is a matter of convenience that these licences should be issued, and it is provided they may
be issued for one or two years so that there may riot be a crush at the same period.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 30, line 16, agreed to.

CLAUSE 36.—(Application to Scotland.)

Lords Amendment: In page 30, line 34, at the end, insert:
(6) For section twenty-one the following section shall be substituted:
(1) A county council shall have the like powers with regard to the lighting of any road in the landward area of the county not included in a special lighting district as they have with regard to roads so included, and the expenditure incurred by a county council in the exercise of the powers conferred by this section shall he defrayed out of a rate to be levied in equal proportions on owners and occupiers throughout the landward area of the county exclusive of any special lighting district.
(2) In this section the expression "special lighting district "means a special lighting district formed in pursuance of section forty-four of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1894.
(3) Section forty-nine of the Lanarkshire County Council Order, 1925, is hereby repealed.'

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have to point out that this Amendment raises a question of Privilege.

3.32 a.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. Jamieson): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Question put, and agreed to [with Special Entry].

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 31, line 7, agreed to.

FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Limits of Speed.)

Lords Amendment: In page 32, line 11, leave. out:
all the wheels are fitted with pneumatic tyres and the vehicle.

3.34 a.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Although the Schedule seems to be considerably amended, it is only a matter of convenience. No change of substance is made except in one case, and that affects
three-wheeled goods vehicles described as motor cycles whose speed limit is extended to 30 miles an hour.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to [several with Special Entries].

MILK BILL.

Lords Amendments considered.

CLAUSE 4.—(Definition of "cheese-milk price" and "standard price," and certification of cheese-milk price.)

Lords Amendment: In page 4, line 19, leave out "average price," and insert "average of the prices."

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

3.39 a.m.

Mr. D. GRENFELL: I would like to ask the Minister for an explanation of what the effect of the Amendment will be. I would like to know if the average price referred to here means the mean of the two prices. The House will know that the part of the Bill to be amended by these words makes provision for the ascertainment of prices of New Zealand and Canadian imported cheese. These prices are different, Canadian cheese being at a higher price than New Zealand cheese, and in determining the amount of payment to be made for the cheese-price of milk, the two prices are taken into account. We see that the purpose of this Amendment is to take the average price, and I have ascertained the prices and quantities of cheese imported from those two countries in the last six months. The price for New Zealand cheese has been about 4¾d., and the price for Canadian cheese has been about 5¾d. The mean of these two figures would be 5¼d., or, when you take the weighted average, 4¾d. The price of the cheaper cheese has been raised by an almost imperceptible fraction because of the disparity in the quantity.

3.41 a.m.

Mr. ELLIOT: My hon. Friend is quite right. There is a point here, and it is, as he correctly stated, the average of the two prices and not the weighted average that is taken, because that is the custom
of the trade. That is the calculation drawn up. It is necessary to put it in that it is the custom of the trade we are taking, not the weighted average.

Subsequent Lords Amendment, in page 8, line 34, agreed to.

CLAUSE 8.—(Provisions as to revocation of schemes.)

Lords Amendment: In page 10, line 23, after "revoked," insert:
before the beginning of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight.

3.43 a.m.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I draw the attention of the House to the fact that this Amendment raises a question of Privilege.

Mr. ELLIOT: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. D. GRENFELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain the purpose of this Amendment? We should like to know why this special date should be chosen.

Mr. ELLIOT: The object of the Amendment is that in the event of any liability falling on the Marketing Board to repay under Clause 3 of the Bill money paid to the Board, the mere fact of the revocation of the scheme after March should not cause such liability to fall on the Board. We make it clear that no liability would fall on the Board.

3.44 a.m.

Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: What would be the effect if the Board were wound up at any date between April, 1936, and April, 1938.? At that time there would be no standard price and no calculation of manufacturing price should such a calamity happen as the Board being wound up between these dates. What would happen in that case? Would the whole liability fall on the Board?

3.45 a.m.

Mr. ELLIOT: I think it is true that theoretically under such conditions this liability would attach to the Board. The Board, having had the money, would be liable for the repayment of the money
it had had. I think it is a distant conjecture and one against which we need not make provision. It is true that a certain liability would attach to the Board and is not removed by this Amendment. As this point has been raised, I will certainly give it my attention. I do not think that the House or the Minister would deal harshly with the Board under such very disastrous circumstances and go to the length of revoking the scheme and dissolving the Board while advances were still being made to it by the Government.

Question put, and agreed to [with Special Entry.]

Remaining Lords Amendments, agreed to. [One with a Special Entry.]

POOR LAW (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Lords Amendments considered and agreed to. [One with a Special Entry.]

COUNTY COURTS BILL [LORDS].

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Captain Maryesson.]

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.

Resolved,
That the Order made by the Secretary of State under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, for extending section one of that Act to the urban district of Seaford, which was presented on the 23rd day of July 1934, be approved."—[Sir J. Gilmour.]

ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) ACTS.

Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1933, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, and the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, in respect of the urban district of Penrith, in the county of Cumberland, which was presented on the 5th day of July 1934, be approved.
Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1933, and
confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, and the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, in respect of the urban district of Swanage and part of the rural district of Wareham and Purbeck, in the county of Dorset, which was presented on the 5th day of July 1934, be approved.
Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1933, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, and the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, for the transfer of the undertaking authorised by the Saffron Walden Electricity Special Order, 1923, which was presented on the 11th day of July 1934, be approved.
Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1933, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, and the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, in respect of the urban district of Usk, in the county of Monmouth, which was presented on the 11th day of July 1934, be approved.
Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Elec-
tricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1933, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, and the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, in respect of the urban district of Dolgelley, in the county of Merioneth, which was presented on the 12th day of July 1934, be approved.
Resolved,
That the Special Order made by the Electricity Commissioners under the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1933, and confirmed by the Minister of Transport under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, and the Public Works Facilities Act, 1930, in respect of the urban district of Preesall, in the county palatine of Lancaster, which was presented on the 12th day of July 1934, be approved."—[Mr. Hore-Belisha.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Thursday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Nine Minutes before Four o'Clock a.m.